The House is set to take up a balanced budget amendment this week, which would limit federal spending in each fiscal year to federal receipts in that year.This is like playing Russian roulette with all the chambers loaded.
Like the push toward war isn't crazy enough for the crazies.
Republicans currently control both houses of Congress and the presidency. They could balance the budget if they wanted to. Instead, they have shown themselves more interested in cutting taxes for the rich. Likewise, any future Congress that wants to has the power necessary to balance the budget. It is deeply strange to think a constitutional amendment is required to do so. This is clearly a political stunt. It may be unlikely to become the law of the land, but the damage it would do if it did become law is large enough that we should be awfully worried that this week’s vote is even going to happen.EPI
A balanced budget amendment would be extraordinarily dangerous for the economy
Hunter Blair
See also
See also
House Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte’s proposed constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, which the House will vote on tomorrow, has many serious drawbacks:Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
5 Reasons Why the House Balanced Budget Amendment Is a Bad Idea
Richard Kogan
1 comment:
Ethical concerns REQUIRE non-positive returns on the inherently risk-free debt of monetary sovereigns - to avoid welfare proportional to account balance in said debt.
So if the US cared about ethical fiat creation, then new additions to the US National Debt would cost nothing AT MOST and could easily be a REVENUE EARNER by the judicious* applicative of NEGATIVE interest and yields on said debt.
So the current danger of a balanced budget amendment is rooted in ethical failure.
*e.g. Individual citizens should be exempt from negative interest up to, say, $250,000 to accommodate legitimate liquidity needs.
Post a Comment