DBWI: What if U.S. Government not required to balance the budget

[Commissar]

Ever since the 50s when a balanced budget amendment got slipped into legislation by Congress and passed, we have had perpetual arguments embroil Congress over taxes to keep the budget balanced as it can only allow the Government to go into debt in wartime.

The end result of the Amendment has been a hard bargaining Congress that always uses fixed contracts for Government Projects and if you go over budget, you are shit out of luck. The Government also levies heavy fines for violations of law and many heavy polluting companies had to spend billions in RD just to comply with the law and Urban Sprawl was arrested in its tracks due to strict environmental laws that made most developers quit. The Government also legalized and taxed prostitution and drug use to get additional revenue.

That is not to say there isn't a downside to all this. When the recessions hit in 1968, 1975, 1979, 1982-84, 1987-1990, and 2001, the Government had a hard as hell time stimulating the economy as it could not use Keysnesian Economics of deficit Spending to grow out of them by expanding the money supply and had to fight ferociously just to raise revenue for new infrastructure projects to reinvigorate the economy.

On the other hand just letting debt pile up without a clear notion of how it will be paid doesn't quite appeal either.

Is it a better deal for the Government to not have a balance budget and be allowed to go into debt?

 

[LOTLOF]

I can't see it being a really big deal. I mean how far would the government ever get into debt? Ten million? Fifty? I can't imagine the debt ever getting as high as a hundred million. The public would never stand for that.

 

[Cash]

Ever since the 50s when a balanced budget amendment got slipped into legislation by Congress and passed, we have had perpetual arguments embroil Congress over taxes to keep the budget balanced as it can only allow the Government to go into debt in wartime.

An amendment to the Constitution requires approval by three-fourths of the states after it passes both houses of Congress with two-thirds of the vote. There's no way it could be "slipped into legislation" and passed as an amendment.

 

[wolf_brother]

Well, for one the American remnant and the other successor states might not be second-world countries who are only taken seriously due to their possession of nukes, much like their Cold War rivals in the former Soviet Union. It was fairly dicey when both of the super powers came crumbling down at the end of the last millennium, but really I'm not sure changing one piece of legislation could save the United States. I'm not sure what's worse, those who try and wank the USSR into the 21st century, or those who do it to the USA. Both had very significant socio-economic structural problems, you're not going to be able to butterfly all of that away.

OOC:

If, as the OP suggests, the Congress is forced to focus on budget battles every year (which is exactly what would happen with a Balanced Budget Amendment), then important legislation that happened IOTL don't happen ITTL. Specifically no civil rights, no environmental protection, no great society, etc.

 

[Commissar]

An amendment to the Constitution requires approval by three-fourths of the states after it passes both houses of Congress with two-thirds of the vote. There's no way it could be "slipped into legislation" and passed as an amendment.

Ah, roll with it and assume three fourths of the states ratified it the same way.

 

[Evan]

An amendment to the Constitution requires approval by three-fourths of the states after it passes both houses of Congress with two-thirds of the vote. There's no way it could be "slipped into legislation" and passed as an amendment.

I'm sure a lot of congressmen were desperately clinging to this same thought. But the Conference of State Governors then agreed it was legal, because two-thirds of Congress approved the routine bill it got added to, and then the states were quite happy to ratify it. Try Topiking - it's an interesting story.

OOC: Topiking = Googling; the name comes from a variation of "topic."

 

[Cash]

Why "roll with it" when the original premise is impossible? The Conference of State Governors has no say in the matter. And an amendment to the Constitution cannot be "slipped into" other legislation. Saying that indicates a total lack of knowledge of the legislative process. Unless the OP intends to rewrite the Constitution, it simply can't happen the way s/he lays it out.

 

[The Red]

Capitalism would probably be more viable as an economic system today worldwide, however Keynesian economics might have been less popular in Europe today without the American horror story.

 

[Commissar]

Why "roll with it" when the original premise is impossible? The Conference of State Governors has no say in the matter. And an amendment to the Constitution cannot be "slipped into" other legislation. Saying that indicates a total lack of knowledge of the legislative process. Unless the OP intends to rewrite the Constitution, it simply can't happen the way s/he lays it out.

Actually Congress determines whether State Legislatures or State Conventions pass the Amendment. With wide interpretation of what a State Convention is.

 

[Blue Max]

We forget about the second depression in the 1980s caused by the Reagan tax cuts. Massive social spending cuts combined with a proliferation of wealth in the hands of wealthiest Americans.


The resultant hard times discredited the so called "libertarianism" ideals, which were merely Plutocracy in sheep's clothing. Far from being a means to gut social spending, the requirement has turned into a powerful tool of the political left. It created a powerful constellation of forces interested in raising taxes that would otherwise been fooled by government borrowing.


Of course, it helps when someone like Dr. Martin Luther King is on hand to mobilize the democrats to repeal the silly ideas of supply-side economics and build a more perfect union. The Reaganist alternative--of a nation that runs entirely on capitalism and pretends that people dying in the streets is a feature and not a problem--deserves to be lost to history.


Can we even imagine a reality where such ideas would long last in a major political party?

 

[Evan]

OOC:

And an amendment to the Constitution cannot be "slipped into" other legislation. Saying that indicates a total lack of knowledge of the legislative process. Unless the OP intends to rewrite the Constitution, it simply can't happen the way s/he lays it out.

All the Constitution actually says is, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution..." So there's nothing in the Constitution preventing an amendment from being slipped into a bill that passes with a two-thirds majority. There might be a procedural rule, but that can be changed.

 

[Derek Jackson]

I heard a treasury secretary say that without a balanced budget unemployment would be 30% instead of 20% but I wonder/

 

[David S Poepoe]

OOC:

All the Constitution actually says is, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution..." So there's nothing in the Constitution preventing an amendment from being slipped into a bill that passes with a two-thirds majority. There might be a procedural rule, but that can be changed.

OOC: That would only be proposing an Amendment, not passing it. Besides the Supreme Court would be asked to weigh in on it. Skip all the discussion about the Constitution and just say that there was a Balanced Amendment passed.

IC: Thankfully there is the 'Emergency and Wartime Expenditures Clause' which will take effect upon the declaration of war by Congress that will allow the nation to spend and borrow whatever is needed to fight its way to victory.