I have heard no argument against having a balanced budget at any level. It is always a good idea for individuals and families to have a spending plan that includes the servicing of any debt as well as day to day expenses, and something left over for savings.
And I have heard no good argument against any local or state government having a balanced budget.
I'm fairly sure we can all agree that it is a good idea for even the federal government to have a balanced budget, although it has been very rare indeed in our history. Even before the constitution was written, we were in debt. There was, after all, a reason for the saying, "not worth a continental."
The problem is, if we require a balanced budget through a constitutional amendment, there will be consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, that will be unacceptable to one party or the other, or even both; and in case of some disaster, whether natural or man caused, it could contribute to our response as a nation being even slower than it already is by restricting the ability of congress or any other part of government to act decisively.
If there is a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget, it could be construed as mandating draconian tax increases or new taxes. It could also be seen as requiring drastic budget cuts, even to Social Security. There will certainly be something for everyone to hate.
There is one other concern I have not heard anyone mention. If such an amendment became part of our constitution, and congress and the president did not come up with a balanced budget, do we really want some federal judge to order changes in taxation or impose a budget on this country by court order?
No comments:
Post a Comment