Source:
NY TimesThe idea of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is like pleated pants — both go in and out of style as the years go by, although in this town, both have their reliable devotees.
This month, variations of the constitutional amendment — which would stipulate that government cannot spend more tax dollars than it takes in — will get their first votes in both chambers of Congress since 1995 as part of the law passed in August to raise the debt ceiling. The first vote will be next week in the House, with the Senate following sometime after Thanksgiving.
While such a measure is always an uphill battle — it would require two-thirds of approval in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states — it would seem that given cries for federal austerity, now would be an ideal time for an amendment to ripen.
With Republicans controlling the House, and many Democrats eager to prove themselves careful stewards of the nation’s finances, there has been some increased interest in such an amendment. More balanced budget proposals have emerged in the first six months of this 112th Congress than in any since 1999, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/us/politics/competing-balanced-budget-proposals-headed-for-votes.html
Political animal linked to this article on "
Congress set to move on ridiculous BBA idea" and reported that "Macroeconomic Advisers, which prepares respected, non-partisan economic analyses for the public and private sectors, reported yesterday that a BBA would do dramatic harm to the economy" because "the BBA...would make all future economic downturns 'deeper and longer,' and would 'retard economic growth' even during normal conditions."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
