Why Is Anyone Opposed To a Balanced Budget Amendment? (Congress, poll, Missouri)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sachs/Mason-Dixon poll: "a large majority of the public backs an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, a reform some lawmakers say is on the table in the debt ceiling debate. 65 percent of the public supports the amendment with 27 percent opposed; 8 percent are undecided.
as the poll’s press release notes, “nearly every state in the nation has a balanced budget amendment.” The state amendments could indicate the feasibility of ratifying a constitutional amendment that would put the same restriction on Congress."
Wouldn't a balanced budget impair the opportunity to launch a spontaneous war?
Wouldn't it weaken our offenses?
That may well be a reason that President Skippy would be opposed to it. He wouldn't be able to take out whatever despot he wants to whenever.
Seriously though, many senators and reps get elected simply because they can tell their constituents "Look what I brought home to xxxxx". It's easy to justify entitlements to your home state when it comes out of the common pool. A balanced budget ammendment would require them to actually limit that stuff. That's not good for them.
Wouldn't a balanced budget amendment make it impossible to render federal aid to areas of the nation that had been slammed by natural and/or man-made disasters?
Do we really want to tell the people of Joplin, Missouri, or of Butte Rose, Louisiana, or of Tuscaloosa, Alabama that they're on their own?
Sachs/Mason-Dixon poll: "a large majority of the public backs an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, a reform some lawmakers say is on the table in the debt ceiling debate. 65 percent of the public supports the amendment with 27 percent opposed; 8 percent are undecided.
as the poll’s press release notes, “nearly every state in the nation has a balanced budget amendment.” The state amendments could indicate the feasibility of ratifying a constitutional amendment that would put the same restriction on Congress."
Why would anyone be opposed to it especially if their states have one? Are these the same people who run up personal debt they can't pay for?
The actual wording of the polling question is in the article.
If most states have such amendments, how come so many of them are in debt?
And if states have to have a balanced budget, why not the people, too? Sorry American Express
What works for states doesn't work for a federal government in this instance. First off, states don't have the currency, fiscal, and economic policies that the federal government has to deal with.
A balanced budget requirement doesn't allow the flexibility to spend during times of crisis. It also doesn't allow for surpluses to be built up and used to pay down debts and set up rainy day funds.
The problem over the past decade is that when we were doing well economically, we decided to go into debt so that when we actually got into a crisis, we didn't have the surplus set up to help the nation get out of it.
It's simple to say "oh if states can do it, the feds can do!"... but that is a very very simple way of thinking about it and shows lack of understanding of how a nation's economy and fiscal policy works. It would cause way more troubles than it would solve.
On whether a candidate backing the amendment would boost his or her appeal, the poll asked, “If a presidential candidate supported a balanced budget amendment, would you be more likely to vote for them, less likely to vote for them, or would it not have a major effect on your voting decision?”
If a presidential candidate supported a balanced budget amendment then I would question that candidates sincerity. I don't believe any Pres is going to put forth any effort whatever to ensure the passage of such an amendment.
A balanced budget amendment will have to be FORCED onto the federal government, Democrat and Republican alike. To believe any congress is going to pass such an amendment is simply tom foolery.
I am not opposed to a Balanced Budget Amendment. In fact, I'm FOR IT as long it isn't used to promote political and social ideologies. Besides considerations for emergencies (natural or otherwise), it must include policies that guarantee revenues to follow economic trends (if economy grows but tax receipts drop, it is an issue) and spending within those revenues with strict guidelines for spending programs. For example, Tax receipts have traditionally been about 18% of the GDP. If they are lower, congress must warrant steps to make sure the revenues catch up. Any additional revenue must be used to pay off debt, not tax cuts or subsidies at any politician's whim.
Likewise, we must set maximum limits on all forms of spending, especially military and entitlement programs, and overall spending kept within the revenue at all times. For example, military spending can be set at 5% of the GDP. If the congress approves a war, it must show how the expense will be paid for.
In other words, instead of succumbing to political ideologies, it is time to make ALL decision makers accountable for their actions such as if their policy affects receipts, and spending. And, line-item veto to the President.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
