Balanced Budget Amendment

Thank you for your swift reply. I will begin by responding to arguments I failed to respond to in the previous round. First, I will start by noting that my opponent has failed to respond to my opening argument that it fixes a flaw in democracy. Con 1: Problems with BBA My opponent creates a false analogy between someone who is overweight and the Balanced Budget Amendment. In a Balanced Budget Amendment, there is nothing wrong with surpluses. In this case, the overweight is a surplus of fat and calories. Next, my opponent makes a false analogy between running a business and running a nation – you don’t run a nation in the same way you run a business. A business can’t stay in a deficit or debt for very long – same is true with a nation. Finally, the BBA that I am proposing grants exceptions in times of war or in states of emergency – hence, the criticisms for war is misrepresenting the actual text. Con 2: Loopholes Wars: I responded to the Keynesian argument that deficits are important in times of depressions/recessions in efforts to get out of it. I showed that government spending to bail out of recession/depressions do more harm than good. Moreover, it would have to be constitutionally limited as to the reasons for war. State of Emergencies: My opponent has brought up an excellent point. A simple and obvious solution is to limit what actually constitutes a state of emergency and limit when they can be issued. Constitutional Erosion: This will be enforced through the Supreme Court: If there is a budget deficit, it is thrown out. Con 3: Alternatives The BBA is not the only solution needed; it is simply a starting point. None of my opponent’s suggestions are sufficient to solve out debt crisis. Reduced congressmen: As my opponent notes, this would be unenforceable and would be a very bad idea. Moreover, this would be unconstitutional as there are 600,000 people per congressional district and this would cause many people to be unrepresented – consequently, they would be taxed without representation. My opponent attempts a Tu quoque fallacy by stating “Republicans do it to!”, which is not an answer to the criticism. Notice that I am not a Republican. Moreover, it is funny that the same is true when democrats are in power. In 2006, then-Senator Obama noted: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit." [1] More Democrats were with him and both parties are equally as bad. This will work in complement to a BBA, but cannot work alone. Today, there are so many ill-informed Americans that it is really quite amazing that these people who can’t even recognize the faces of our leaders vote. How will we get people to become aware and get the people to recognize the overspending problem? I would support a line-item veto, but in complement to a BBA because this simply cannot work alone, because, as Roy notes: “it would require the President to go in and cut the wild spending programs which he disapproves. The problem is that there are not any wild spending programs that the President disapproves! There never has been and never will be. Finally, politicians are re-elected by spending, that is the fundamental problem.” [2] Conclusion Thank you for this debate. You have been a very kind and respectful opponent and I appreciate that. I hope to debate you sometime soon, if you so do please. The BBA is good because it addresses chronic deficits and fixes a major flaw in democracy – an argument not addressed by con. Moreover, my opponent has often times misunderstood the context of the BBA – especially in regards to wars and in states of emergency and overlooks some obvious flaws with his alternatives to the BBA. Out of room. Resolution affirmed, vote pro. [1] http://www.politifact.com... [2] http://www.debate.org...