Should the Constitution have a balanced budget amendment?

The subject of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is an issue brought to the surface through the passage of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act in the House of Representatives. It was an effort by the House of Representatives to address the budget crisis, but it was not well received by the Senate. The response was to table the legislation without even discussing the content or the merits. Legislation passed by the House has the right to be presented, discussed and voted upon without one individual or a group of individuals establishing a road block. Granted a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would require ¾ of the states to approve such a measure, but with the current economic times, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is a good idea. It is also one I feel would be well received by the states.

As a country, we presently spend more than we take in which is why we are in the current financial straits with the need to borrow money to pay our obligations. Our country needs to get back on a sound fiscal policy which will not only help our deficit but increase confidence in us as a country. States are required to have a balanced budget, so why not our country? In comparing these situations, it is important to point out that states have certain responsibilities and the federal government has certain responsibilities as defined in the Constitution. Both these scenarios must be addressed within the respective budgets.

The current budget crises is not the first time we have had a need to increase the debt limit of our country. Over the years and several presidencies, the debt limit has been increased numerous times. It is time this process be changed. Granted there will be tough decisions on how to balance the budget if such legislation establishes such action and is ratified by the states. What would be the reaction by the rest of the world? What would be the result in our economy? It would do two things. The first and most important is would establish some confidence in our citizens and take the unknown out of the picture. The second thing it would do is send a positive signal to the rest of the world that we are serious about our financial future.

Balancing any budget is a simple principle but often a difficult process. The federal government is no exception. We as a country must start to only spend what is received. It is a sound principle which many if not all states are required to achieve. The federal government in no way should be an exception to this principle. This should not be taken as a reason to raise taxes so the government can spend more money, which has been part of some proposals in the present budget battle. If such measures would come to fruition it would hurt the economy. The signal sent to Washington with the election results of 2010 was clear. The voters want the excessive spending to stop. The argument has been that the rich need to pay their fare share, rich being those whose income is over $250,000. If taxing the rich becomes part of any legislation to increase the debt limit it would hurt businesses who are struggling in our present economy. It would also hurt the prospect for companies to hire individuals as their costs would be higher and the profits would be lower.

Congress and the President must understand that when they raise the costs of doing business, they reduce the chances for companies to grow. When they reduce the chances for companies to grow, they reduce the possibility of adding jobs to the economy. Whether a balanced budget amendment is part of an overall budget plan, or is presented in separate legislation, it would be reacted to favorably by the American people as identified in some news reports. The chances are slim to none that this amendment proposal will be included in a final budget plan to address the need to raise the debt limit. Separate legislation to establish a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution appears to be possible. If such legislation were to pass the House it would be difficult if not impossible for any senator to say they were against balancing the budget. Having such a proposal in separate legislation would increase the chances of it succeeding in both houses of Congress. It would also be difficult for the President to say no to such effort.

All legislation has objective (s) when they are created. The true test of a legislative proposal for a balanced amendment would be the language within it. Some discussion has begun about how such a proposal would be implemented. While establishing the framework for a balanced budget amendment, some details have been identified that would provide flexibility in how a balanced budget would be achieved. Everyone knows that there are areas where there is a waste of tax dollars. Examples are constantly in the news where our tax dollars are spent on things the people do not want and where they do not make sense in terms of the objective attached to the costs. It is also well understood that there is fraud in areas such as Medicare and Medicaid. This is reinforced with efforts by government organizations to find and prosecute individuals and organizations who commit such fraud. Identifying and eliminating waste in government entities would benefit efforts to achieve a balanced budget.