I have been against the balanced budget amendment since I learned about it in economics. The reason to oppose it is simple. It hamstrings what the government can do during a recession. In 2001, when the economy was slowing Bush cut taxes (the wrong way) to help jumpstart the economy. Under the balanced budget amendment Congress would have to remove some kind of program to be able do that. But now I’m beginning to change my mind about the balanced budget amendment. Not because the arguments I just listed are incorrect, but because it appears Washington is unable to restrain spending even in the face of a fiscal catastrophe.
My only fear about passing the amendment now is that it might be too late already. Even if the government was in balance this year there would still be long-term problems with debt the U.S. has accrued over the past three decades. However, a balance budget amendment would force Congress to either raise taxes or reduce the size of government. Supporting a balanced budget amendment isn’t the best choice, but the only one that will force Congress to confront the problem. It is also an attainable goal. Congress was only a few votes short of passing the bill during the Clinton administration.
The GOP would be wise to make this part of their platform for the upcoming elections. The balanced budget amendment enjoys a lot of populist support and Americans are clamoring for fiscal restraint in Washington. The amendment would change the tone in D.C. for the next 20 years. It’s time politicians start figuring out how we pay for all these entitlements we’ve dreamed up over the past 60 years and stop worrying about adding more
[...] wrote last month about the Balanced Budget Amendment. This is a very populist bill that despite its economic theory [...]