• spaceghoti
    +5

    I see no downsides to that, as long as you believe that there's nothing that is in dire need of emergency funds and we should optimize current spending before increasing it.

    I'm all for optimizing spending and cutting waste. But an amendment requiring the federal government to maintain a balanced budget is inviting disaster. States that have balanced budget amendments fare the worst during economic crisis. There are so many reasons why this is a bad idea I can't list them all in a single post.

    • Aaron215
      +4

      Absolutely. A better approach to a balanced budget amendment would be to limit what portions of the federal budget would be exempt from a balanced budget amendment, or ensure that there were methods to suspend the rule for situations like economic crisis. I would steer clear of the first one though, as entitlements like Social Security and Medicare/aid are hot button for both power parties, and trying to broker a deal to make it exempt would all but stall the idea. Having a super majority suspension option though, would be helpful.

      I know it's political taboo for many, but looking to other countries is a great idea. I always default to Switzerland or the Scandinavian countries, and looking now, today is not an exception. Switzerland has a unique take on the runaway budget/debt problem. Rather than force a balanced budget, they have a "Debt Brake" system. It's less of a "Let's jump straight to the most extreme", and more of an incremental step. Here's more about it.