NationStates Jolt Archive

As somebody committed to less government spending, I think I've found a way to finally put some restraint on it.

Simply pass an amendment along the lines of "Congress shall not spend more monies than that which has been raised through taxation of that year." Okay:
*maybe not that exact wording
*passing an amendment is harder than I make it out to be
*and that its ironic that I, somebody committed to fewer laws, wants to pass one like this, but you know what I mean....

I understand it seems rather naive to try to simply outlaw this, but the way I see it, if we made deficit spending a direct violation of the Constitution, we could knock our government back down a few notches. Or this could backfire and as to fit the spending bill, Congress could raise taxes (but I see this as an unlikely scenario).

Deficit is not good for most governments IMHO, although in Australia it was the trend from Federation to the Eighties. However governments should be able to go into deficit for two reasons IMHO: if an emergency strikes no one wants the government to have to cut other services before being able to assist; and secondly my city council has gone into deficit in order to build some much needed infrastructure which, being a small government, cannot afford to do without going into deficit.

I think the government should be allowed to go into deficit, but should be discouraged against it.

no
there are times when deficit spending is necessary and they tend to be emergencies.

but a balanced budget should be a plank on every party's platform

It's a good idea in occasions the money is used for unimportant bills or acts, but the events that do require some deficit will be result in bureucracy as law makers would push to have the law be modifed so Congress can go in debt for special occasions, from which the majority would then use those lines to spend whatever they like anyhow.

Good but bad idea

Well, an excessive debt of course is bad, but a small deficit is helpful. (Just like how you probally don't buy everything with cash). But you're right there should be someway to keep it under control, I just don't know how that would work.

"A national debt, if not excessive, can be to us all a national blessing." Alexander Hamilton.

As somebody committed to less government spending, I think I've found a way to finally put some restraint on it.

Simply pass an amendment along the lines of "Congress shall not spend more monies than that which has been raised through taxation of that year." Okay:
*maybe not that exact wording
*passing an amendment is harder than I make it out to be
*and that its ironic that I, somebody committed to fewer laws, wants to pass one like this, but you know what I mean....

I understand it seems rather naive to try to simply outlaw this, but the way I see it, if we made deficit spending a direct violation of the Constitution, we could knock our government back down a few notches. Or this could backfire and as to fit the spending bill, Congress could raise taxes (but I see this as an unlikely scenario).

Nah, because sometimes deficit spending is necessary. Let's say there's a legitimate war going on or something else important. Sometimes you have to put the economy on the back burner. It can't always be the top priority. And Lord forbid, we raise taxes on those rich people. They need the money for bigger swimming pools, fine dining, plasma TVs, diamonds (at the expense of poor, limbless Africans), and such. Also, if deficit spending was outlawed, we'd get nothing. There'd be no more money left for education, health care, and welfare after they started senseless wars and paid off those corporations. Not to mention a bloated defense budget from the Cold War.

I would support such an amendment.

I am a campaigner for strong surpluses, however there may one day be a need to run a deficit.

Although I wouldn't object to someone kicking George Bush repeatedly until he runs a surplus.

Wasn't there an attempt to pass some sort of budget amendment in the 80s (in the US)? I think it might have just been a balanced-budget amendment.

As for the no-deficit spending idea, I agree with the others that sometimes it's necessary. I would not be surprised if a lot of hardcore small-gov fans would agree. I would say that in the long run, keeping our independence or whatever and not being conquered by a malicious foreign power is waaaay better than trying too hard for an ideal like small government.

Being that without deficit spending we would never have gotten through the great depression and WWII, I wouldn't support this amendment. Now the rediculous deficit we have running at the moment is absurd (7.7 trillion dollars and growing) This amendment would be sealing the door shut forever after the horse has already joined the french foreign legion.

As somebody committed to less government spending, I think I've found a way to finally put some restraint on it.

Simply pass an amendment along the lines of "Congress shall not spend more monies than that which has been raised through taxation of that year."

I'd suggest adding "unless an emergency appropriation is required".

And then make sure you eleborate to make sure "emergency" can't be defined as anything such as "we really urgently need to give ourselves a pay raise and we don't have the money for it... it's a disaster!"

For example, actual real wars with actual real opponents (as opposed to "the war on drugs" or "the war on terror" would render the prohibition on deficit spending null and void.

Wasn't there an attempt to pass some sort of budget amendment in the 80s (in the US)? I think it might have just been a balanced-budget amendment.

As for the no-deficit spending idea, I agree with the others that sometimes it's necessary. I would not be surprised if a lot of hardcore small-gov fans would agree. I would say that in the long run, keeping our independence or whatever and not being conquered by a malicious foreign power is waaaay better than trying too hard for an ideal like small government.
it was a mainstay of the republican platform for a long time. needless to say they gave it up when they got power enough to dictate budgets.

A balanced budget amendment would be bad for the United States as it wouldn't allow for fiscal stimulus when their was an economic downturn. In fact, it would require budget cutting during a downturn, which would make the recession worse.

But, I am quite sure that a balanced over the course of the business cycle amendment would be a good idea and prevent a lot of harm. For example, it would prevent the massive deficits that America is running now and which I don't really understand. You'd think that if you were the worlds only superpower, you'd want to stay that way for as long as possible and not fiscally piss it all way, wouldn't you?

So, strict rules on balencing budgets over the course of the business cycle. Tax cuts can only be given if there is enough surplus to pay for them. If there is some massive emergancy, the rules can be suspended, but I reccomend making it difficult to do this so it will only be used for real emergancies.