All 47 GOP Senators support a Balanced Budget Amendment

[CatoMinor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Frodo]

Senator John McCain begs to differ.

[Del Tachi]

I doubt Cochran and Wicker support this. 

A BBA would mean that the one billion dollars of earmarks they get every year would probably get cut...

[memphis]

So stupid. It completely ties the hands of the federal government to address a short term catastrophe. Shoud American families, businesses, etc legally lock themselves in a position of never being able to borrow money ever, no matter what happens? It's just as much a bad idea for the feds.

[Lief 🗽]

BBA continues to be probably the worst mainstream idea in Washington, other than perhaps raising the SS retirement age.

[muon2]

Many states have a BB clause in their constitution. IL has it and a 3/5 requirement for borrowing beyond the fiscal year. It has hardly hampered the ability of the state to either create or solve a fiscal crisis. I'm not sure why there is so much concern if the feds had a similar provision.

[King]

They should just bring back PayGo.  Oh wait, that only lead to a surplus and strong economy.  Nvm.

[Ebowed]

These are the same people who insist on massive wars and programs without specifying how they will be paid for and then extend tax cuts while insisting that any tax increases are not an option.  I'd watch with great interest to see how they would 'pay' off the deficit to meet the demands of their own balanced budget amendment.

[King]

These are the same people who insist on massive wars and programs without specifying how they will be paid for and then extend tax cuts while insisting that any tax increases are not an option.  I'd watch with great interest to see how they would 'pay' off the deficit to meet the demands of their own balanced budget amendment.

Which is why Democrats should support this.

This would actually protect things like Medicare and Medicaid from getting slashed for tax breaks.

[bullmoose88]

Many states have a BB clause in their constitution. IL has it and a 3/5 requirement for borrowing beyond the fiscal year. It has hardly hampered the ability of the state to either create or solve a fiscal crisis. I'm not sure why there is so much concern if the feds had a similar provision.

I believe 49 states have it in their constitutions or otherwise mandated by law.  Vermont, IIRC, maintains a balanced budget by convention.

But I believe all of these balanced budget rules apply only to the operating budgets...not the capital budgets...or is it the otherway round...but I'm pretty sure they can rack up debt on one of their two budgets.

[memphis]

Many states have a BB clause in their constitution. IL has it and a 3/5 requirement for borrowing beyond the fiscal year. It has hardly hampered the ability of the state to either create or solve a fiscal crisis. I'm not sure why there is so much concern if the feds had a similar provision.

States don't have to worry about foreign policy. Also, the fact that the states already have their fiscal hands tied means that it is that much more imperative that the federal government be able to borrow should (when) catastrophe hits.

[Phony Moderate]

Bank bailouts are sure to help balance the budget.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Living within our means is a problem, why?

[krazen1211]

They should just bring back PayGo.  Oh wait, that only lead to a surplus and strong economy.  Nvm.

Lol? They brought back PayGo in 2007.

[Hotblack Desiato]

Too bad they didn't show such fiscal discipline back in the good times of the 1980s and 1990s.

If they'd done this back then, we wouldn't be in our current troubles.

[Verily]

Many states have a BB clause in their constitution. IL has it and a 3/5 requirement for borrowing beyond the fiscal year. It has hardly hampered the ability of the state to either create or solve a fiscal crisis. I'm not sure why there is so much concern if the feds had a similar provision.

States survive with BBAs because, when there is a catastrophe, the federal government bails them out. Think of all the federal money spent on Katrina or 9/11 or the banking crisis, but imagine a much larger-scale catastrophe.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

BBA continues to be probably the worst mainstream idea in Washington, other than perhaps raising the SS retirement age.

If you are going to fix the long term problems of Social Security without radically changing the program, there are only three potential fixes: raise taxes, increase the retirement age, and reformulate the COLA.  Increasing the retirement age is the least bad of the three.

[Lief 🗽]

I'd much rather force those making over $108,000 (or whatever the number is) a year to pay a little more in taxes than force the working poor (whose life expectancy has not noticeably gone up) to continue working longer into their sixties. That strikes me as pointlessly and cruelly inhumane.

[Hotblack Desiato]

If we're talking trying to save SS instead of scrapping it as I would favor, just stop exempting incomes over $108,000 from paying their fair share of it. Of course, don't calculate incomes over $108,000 into the equation for paying back. If they make that much they can be expected to save a little on their own.

[King]

They should just bring back PayGo.  Oh wait, that only lead to a surplus and strong economy.  Nvm.

Lol? They brought back PayGo in 2007.

And actually follow it.

[Lief 🗽]

The Democrats did by and large follow PayGo, except for TARP/the stimulus (which by definition wouldn't work if it went by the rules of PayGo). Of course one of the first things Boehner did in January was get rid of it.

[opebo]

If we're talking trying to save SS instead of scrapping it as I would favor, just stop exempting incomes over $108,000 from paying their fair share of it. Of course, don't calculate incomes over $108,000 into the equation for paying back. If they make that much they can be expected to save a little on their own.

Actually I would like to see the SS tax not only cover all income, but be highly progressive as well - lower the rate on the working poor, cover non-workers, and make the rate on those above $100,000 something like 20-30%.

I'm not sure why there is so much concern if the feds had a similar provision.

Living within our means is a problem, why?

Oh come on guys, drop the pretense.  You know as well as I such a thing would destroy the country, lead to millions of deaths, a permanent depression, etc.

(in fact even for state governments to have BB amendments is asinine)

[tpfkaw]

The Democrats did by and large follow PayGo, except for TARP/the stimulus (which by definition wouldn't work if it went by the rules of PayGo). Of course one of the first things Boehner did in January was get rid of it.

Mrs. Lincoln had a good time at the play, except for the part where her husband was shot.

[krazen1211]

The Democrats did by and large follow PayGo, except for TARP/the stimulus (which by definition wouldn't work if it went by the rules of PayGo). Of course one of the first things Boehner did in January was get rid of it.

They followed it....except when arbitrarily deciding not to follow it. Those were not the only 2 types it was bypassed.

It was bypassed here.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1593-Democrats-Skirt-Their-Own-Law-To-Extend-UI-COBRA-Benefits

[krazen1211]

Here's another time they waived pay-go.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4691/show

 This Act, with the exception of section 5, is designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles.

And another.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2847/text

(b) PAYGO- All applicable provisions in this title are designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles.

And another

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4851/text

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled ‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’ for this Act,

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL31943_20100112.pdf

During the same period, the Senate has voted to waive the PAYGO rule eight
times: twice in relation to bills; five times in relation to amendments; and once in relation to a
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to a bill.



What an amusing rule! How would the Medicare program have been created in 1965 under these pay-go principles that the Democrats have?