Well the BBA is back, and it goes to the House for a vote tomorrow::

On the surface it seems like a good idea, and the GOP for sure loves it, but others say not only that it's not good, but that it's horrible. Ezra Klein and others on the WPost editorial board actually call it the worst idea in Washington....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...aOIC_blog.html

Seems valid. What do you think?

A balanced budget amendment that deficits cannot rise above 5% of GDP is a lot better than a purely BBA.

BBA would be simply disastrous.

Rigid inflexibility in fiscal policy never seems like a good idea to me. If a balanced budget is called for, then one can be passed by a majority that actually wants is. All that a ridiculous condition like this will produce is more borrowing, more debt, and more inability to pay for public investment.

The results of not having a BBA aren't disastrous?

A BBA, just like the gold standard, are artificial mechanisms by which to reign in uncontrolled spending from politicians who can't be trusted to otherwise control themselves.

Of course, a third and superior option is to stop voting for politicians who aren't fiscally responsible, but the American people seem to be too stupid or too attached to whichever federal teat they are sucking on for them to perform that trick.

Obviously this will fail or be morphed into some mechanism that allows the politicians to keep spending at or above current pace.

/end-thread

The balanced budget amendment is a joke. Get 3/4 of the states to ratify it? Good luck with that.

But, even before that, it needs 2/3 of the Senate. Not going to happen.

Yeah, this just seems to be the GOP in the House jerking off again. Isn't this like the 3rd time this year they've passed the BBA?

i think it's great. let politicians who don't support it have to show in their record that they voted 3 times against having a balanced budget.

Not that they're doing that or anything. They're voting against a balanced budget Amendment.

well they are doing that, lol, but yes, they're also voting against making it a constitutional requirement to have the budget balanced.

great point nit

So I can rest assured that the people who vote for the BBA have never taken an intro economics class. Good to know.

It's not nitty, it's a big difference.

Voting in favor of a teh roads is rather different than voting in favor of amending the Constitution with a Teh Roads Amendment.

And hope the electorate is stupid enough not to understand why.

there isn't a good reason for why, it's because those politicians who vote against it don't understand that the size of government needs to be restricted. not understanding basics like this will never look good.

* and the people in this forum who support it

<has taken 2 econ classes

THNX

Im sure I could find some Econ PhDs who are for BBA

such is the macroecon world, they still cant agree on what exactly "cured" the great depression
---

fwiw I think the fact that only one president since 1980 kept balanced/positive budget is a decent reason to consider such a rule, even tho its obv a looot worse option than having responsible politicians.

Or evidence that a balanced budget isnt remotely as important as supporters claim.

Exactly. This is one of the most thoughtless things to come out of what is shaping up to be the absolute worst Congress in my lifetime. These head-in-ass "solutions" to budget problems are designed to win votes and create neat little sound bytes but actually make the problem they are designed to fix much worse precisely because of the rigid inflexibility you mentioned.

And it isn't only the right who comes up with this type of stupid. We are seeing the fruits of such efforts here in FL to "fix" education like our class size amendment. Without underlying controls and allowances for economic decline it has turned into a huge mess that is getting worse with every budget shortfall.

I would rather see them focus on something like the Flag Burning Amendment if they are going to focus on something stupid. At least that would not make things exponentially worse from a pragmatic standpoint.

<--- has seen and read free to choose, much better than some Keynesian "economics" class

You know what? Milton Friedman, nobel prize winning economist, supported a BBA

who woulda thunk it!

Typical numerology imo. Why not 0.5% deficit or 0.5% surplus amendment ? Instead of making a judgment about which would be the best economy or admitting that it depends on circumstances and sometimes surplus or deficit are the best solutions donks from GOP are fixated on number 0 for some reason.

Economy (and most other areas of science) made a lot of progress till the days of Milton Friedman man.
You keep quoting his work as it was the Bible or something. Free to choose is free market propaganda, not serious work. It's made to "educate" people, to convince them to the idea of free markets not to make serious arguments for its advantages.

You know what? Paul Krugman, nobel prize winning economist, doesnt support a BBA pointing out states that have one had worse recessions as they were forced to cut back public spending when the economy worsened creating a double dose effect.

who woulda thunk it!

So now all we need is a third nobel prize winnign economist to weigh in to convince you on what is the correct side LirvA?

This is not accurate. Not sure how the filibuster vs. reconciliation plays into this. If a filibuster can prevent a balanced budget then no. POTUS can veto a budget bill and it will take more than a simple majority to override.