Republican leaders propose a balanced budget amendment. Fox News accurately assesses the setup: Balanced budget, line-item veto; ’80s ideas with less chance of success than ‘Roseanne‘.
“Roseanne” is back on the air with smashing ratings. “Ready Player One,” is on the big screen. It’s an homage to ‘80s video games. 1980s cinema virtuoso sprinkles the film with Easter eggs from the decade. And the Republican Party is back touting a constitutional balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto for the president of the United States.
All that’s missing are Bonnie Tyler and Alf.
President Trump was apoplectic when Congress delivered a $1.3 trillion spending bill to his desk to avert a government shutdown last week. He immediately called for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto.
Constitutional Hurdle
A balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto voth would require an amendment to the constitution.
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the procedure.
- It takes a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures to propose an amendment.
- Then to become part of the Constitution, the amendment must be ratified by either the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or state ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states.
It would take years, if not decades, before such an amendment could pass. Never is more likely.
Backbone
It does not take a two-thirds majority to pass a bill, it only takes the backbone of a simple majority.
Hypocrites propose something something that ultimately takes 75% approval when 50% is doable anytime one party is in control of the House, Senate, and White House.
Liars
Anyone proposing a balanced budget who also voted for this $1.3 trillion budget boondoggle is both a hypocrite and a liar.
Republicans do not want a balanced budget. If they did, we would have one.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
A 1 1/2 T fiscal stimulus package and a balanced budget?
There is just one other problem with that theory
It assumes that the government can productively use the money during these times. That will never happen under the current corrupt crony capitalist system we have now
Oh peh-leeez, so I guess the point of this silly exercise is that they can claim “well, we wanted to pass a balanced budget amendment but the democrats won’t let us. It’s all the democrats fault, always!”. Unfortunately, there are people who actually fall for this shit.
Anyway, besides this exercise being just a kabuki dance, the idea of a balanced budget amendment is simply not a good one. Instead, we need politcians with true convictions who will make government play a helpful role in the economy. In other words, we need politicians who will actually follow Keynes’ advice. All of it. Yes, you heard what I said!! What this means is that government should play a counter-cyclical role in the economy, running deficits during times of recession and surpluses during the good times to help offset capitalism’s natural tendency towards boom and bust cycles. Unfortunately, our poor excuse for politicians have a broken record which is always stuck on the merry deficit song at all times.
What happens when the fed stops buying all those debt fueled treasury bonds? My guess is without accommodation rates are in for a jump. Sell your house while you can.
Great point Mish. And the last thing conservatives will want is a balanced budget amendment. They can’t cut SS and Medicare and they know it. They could only cut the military and raise taxes. Either attempt would mean a permanent liberal government.
Proud as a Canadian? I don’t understand pride. I was born a Canadian by chance and I have very little to say in how it’s run as a country. I understand pride in accomplishing something you had control over but pride from random circumstances seems rather foolish.
All politicians are good liars. In fact that is the only qualification that is needed to be one. For most other jobs it is education and experience.
The push towards socialism and communism is exactly the result of inequity created by years of upward distribution on wealth. There are very few true capitalists – most is through crony capitalism and government kickbacks. Increased inequality destroys the middle class which is a buffer.
Welcome back to the good cop/bad cop beltway frolics and the fatal flaw embedded in every democracy: When the majority discover they can vote themselves access to the public purse, they will.
“It’s all the same money. You can’t steal from yourself. You can’t see the forest for the trees. The trees are the names they give them like Social Security. The forest is the fact it’s all the same government debt.”
Fine. If upward redistribution is not stealing, then neither is redistribution in the other direction. Again, as I said, this can be done the easy way or the hard way. Those who benefited from the upward redistribution have the choice. As of now.
Once an alternative to the US dollar exists, it will change, but that isn’t any time soon without a collapse.
Even if SS was fully funded, if the government is bankrupt every where else, what difference does it make?
It’s all the same money. You can’t steal from yourself. You can’t see the forest for the trees. The trees are the names they give them like Social Security. The forest is the fact it’s all the same government debt.
“Whirlaway stop being ridiculous. The money has already been spent. There is no Trust Fund. Sheeesh. Stop the Al Gore “lock box” idiocy.”
You are the one being ridiculous. I have already stated that the money was stolen. It will have to be recovered. We can do it the easy way or the hard way. Those who stole the money will have to decide which of the two to take.
Whirlaway stop being ridiculous. The money has already been spent. There is no Trust Fund. Sheeesh. Stop the Al Gore “lock box” idiocy.
No, it doesn’t. It takes 50% in reconciliation. We have Obamacare to show for it. It does take 60% to raise deficit spending, but there are many loopholes as we just found out.
In that case you can shave $5.5T off the national debt, since that is the part of the total $21T national debt that is owed to other government programs like SS, Federal Pensions, and so forth.
This is all smoke and mirrors (just like the 80’s)…the level of hypocrisy in Washington DC is beyond comparison to any other in history…Congressmen and women only vote for their own personal survival…not for what is best for the country…Trump was going to drain the swamp…then approves an outlandish budget that will generate more deficits on top of the bogus tax cuts…sooner or later you have to pay the piper…Each congress always pushes for Later…as the elimination of the middle class continues…They want a balanced budget amendment…special counsels…and as most Americans I am still waiting on affordable Health care…repeal and replace….all Trump BS…he got into office on being different but proved he is no different than any other politician…a liar and a cheat…
Constitutional Amendment? Democrats IGNORE the 2nd Amendment at will.
Obama just made up laws (DACA, EPA bankrupting whole industries, the Iranian Deal, the Paris Accords, etc.)
Republicans should do the same and let Trump line item spending away.
Let the democrats cry about it.
Second point, in reality it takes 60% of the Senate to pass a budget, not 50%.
It’s been 26 years since an Amendment has passed. They found out it was much easier to change the constitution via the Supreme Court.
Wrong again. The trust fund was raided in order to bridge the deficits caused by the enormous tax cuts and tax giveaways. If the reverse has to be done in order to get back the money that was stolen, then that is what they have to do. Or else the people will force them to do it. Your rich masters have had the time of their lives with the stealing. Now it is either payback time. Or pitchfork time. Whichever they pick!
There is a convention of States movement in effect. I get emails on updates on the ongoing battle . So far 13 States have passed the resolution. It may happen yet.
There is far more denial than trust IMO.
Carl is correct. There is nothing to “gut”. There is no lock box, no trust fund, no money saved up. It’s just IOUs.
Curiously, there is no trust fund, but there still is a bit of trust.
There is nothing to “gut”. The only asset that SS and Medicare have is US Bonds. As money went into SS, SS turned it over to the government by buying bonds, and the government spent it. The only way that SS and Medicare can make their required payments over the next twenty years is to sell and redeem those bonds, meaning they have to sell bonds in competitions to the ones the Treasury is selling to finance the deficit. That is exactly the same as if the money never went into SS, and instead the government itself sells extra bonds now to fund SS.
Given that the Fed is not a branch of government, and has nothing to do with how much the government spends, I take this to be a compliment to the Fed, saying that they are so efficient at maintaining orderly markets in the face of ridiculous spending that the government isn’t afraid to do more of the same. I doubt that eliminating the Fed would have much impact on spending, however, as I expect that if the Fed were eliminated, the Treasury would simply pick up where the Fed used to be.
I do agree that no Constitutional Amendment is needed. All that is needed is a reversal of the 1937 case “West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish” and the line of cases that followed it, meaning pretty much every case since then. That case granted the Federal Government exactly that thing the founders tried to prevent it having, pretty much unlimited power to do anything. A Constitutional Amendment is far more likely, however, than overruling all cases since 1937.
Well, this talk is intended only to gut SS and Medicare. They raise SS and Medicare taxes under the guise of keeping them solvent, then give tax cuts that go mainly to the corporations and the rich, and then claim there is only way to balance the budget i.e. to cut the social net. Rinse and repeat. This has gone on irrespective of which party is in power (remember Clinton’s “era of big government is over” and Obama’s
“grand bargain”?)
While it’s true that a balanced budget amendment is both hypocritical and unlikely, it is equally true that it is essential. Many states have one, and while they have ways to play with the books to get around it, they are also generally in significantly better financial situations than those without one. The US, as it stands, is approaching the end predicted by the founders, spending itself to death, only to end in anarchy. A balance budget amendment might help it last a few more generations.
I doubt that any Congressman or Senator believes it can possibly be enacted. I hope that they vote for it, hypocritically thinking that it will make them look good while it will never matter, and then we can see if enough states can do the same thing.
A balanced budget starts with ending the Federal Reserve. No amendment to the US Constitution is necessary.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” – Alexis de Tocqueville (in Democracy in America)