How about the balanced budget amendment in return for revenue?

[Tony_FLADEM]

Do you think that would work? Not debating the merits of the BBA. Just thinking about it as a negotiating tool.

[AlabamaLibrul]

1. Revenue is a nonstarter, and the democratic-republican coalition has let it go this far

without any revenue, it's not happening.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Do you know what a Balanced Budget Amendment is and what it does?

Just curious.

[Tony_FLADEM]

5. Yes, I know what it does. It prevents the U.S. government from borrowing money

If it ever got ratified that would be in 10+ years. The issues being dealt with are more immediate.

[Chan790]

17. This one also forbids future tax increases or new taxes.

So it's a non-starter.

It insures the only way to balance the books into the future is spending cuts, a policy they know will force an eventual abandonment of Soc. Sec. Medicare, Medicaid and the assorted other good-for-the-public programs they hate...but especially the healthcare law. It's a cancer bill...it will metastasize and allow them to win even if they lose every subsequent national election for the next 60 years.

[Tony_FLADEM]

19. They shouldn't even discuss that then

One within certain parameters: for example, it wouldn't apply if unemployment were over 7%.

[dbonds]

3. A government is not a business...

You can't budget in things like Katrina, the Gulf oil spill disaster, the south western drought, the April 27 tornado swarm, all the rivers flooding.

Government needs to be more flexible to do the job a government should do.

[AlabamaLibrul]

13. And... you can't budget in a trillion dollars of bankster bailouts

I always thought that was the dumbest argument, government-as-business-with-no-debt-ever, when in fact it is big business that is always coming to government, hat in hand, looking for some money -- usually after running up a Metric Shitton(tm) of debt.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. No the BBA is idiocy.

[hughee99]

6. I don't think they would go for it.

They can raise the revenue, but no one in the house or the senate can guarantee a balance budget amendment would actually get through the states.

[Change Happens]

7. A vote on one yes, we all know it will never pass or become law...

But, yes, I am all for letting them piss in the wind...

[ellenfl]

9. republicans account for more spending than dems. that's

how they think they will drown government. they will never vote for a bba. it's not happening. i see them pushing it past 2012 so the one term teabaggers aren't around to cause any more problems. our corporate masters must be a little apoplectic right about now with what they themselves have wrought with their side's creation of the teabaggers.

ellen fl

[Change Happens]

21. Amen!

[loyalsister]

8. We have one in MO

it also requires that all tax increases be put on the ballot. It has been a friggin disaster. Education and social services always absorb the cuts for the balancing. We rely heavily on federal matching funds.

MO isn't the only state whose budget would starve.

[Cant trust em]

10. How can you not debate the terms of the BBA and use it as a negotiating tool?

I'm not going to give them an awful policy tool so that we can retain negotiating leverage.

These arent' just bullets in a gun that you use to get leverage. They actually have consequences.

The BBA is clearly the worst option that anyone has discussed.

[Tony_FLADEM]

15. You can negotiate the terms of the BBA

for example, taxes have to be raised if you go to war. Also, the BBA would not apply if unemployment were above 7%

[Cant trust em]

20. I think we'd need more time to drill down on possible conditions.

I wouldn't want a debate this important to be done in a crisis mode.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. BBA is not only dumb, but is disastrous

I'm not opposed to allowing a vote on it in the current Congress since it will never under any circumstances pass the Senate.

That said, the revenues appear to come in via the triggers. The GOP will have to either vote for recommended revenues, or see precious government programs in their own districts disappear. This disables the ideological arguments of the GOP bloc and makes GOPers put their money where their mouth is relative to actually existing government programs. I like the across the board cuts and trigger mechanisms for that reason. It is the actual (not projected) way to get revenue generation into the bill.

[Cant trust em]

12. Are revenues part of the trigger?

I must have missed that. If you could link to it, it would make me feel a lot better.

[Tony_FLADEM]

16. No they are not

I am talking about the Balanced Budget Amendment. Give them the BBA with some conditions in return we get $800 billion in revenue.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. The Committee will make recommendations, at least some of which will be revenues

If you say, "No, there won't be any revenues," it will be about the same as me saying, "No, there won't be any cuts." It is a bipartisan committee, so it will invariably come with cuts and revenues.

Now, how do those revenues get implemented? That's where the triggers come in. The GOP House is certainly free to reject the revenue recommendations of the committee, but that will result in across the board cuts, including to prized GOP programs (defense) and programs that directly affect GOP districts (say, farm subsidies). So, the GOP House members, through the triggers, are incentivized to break from pure Party ideology and support the recommendations, even if those are revenues. This is why the triggers are useful. As for the Dems, they oppose cuts all down the line, so their choice is in some sense easier: they will have to vote on recommended cuts or see the across the board cuts. For them, it's six of one half a dozen of the other. For the GOP, it's a dilemma that breaks the Party's bloc voting by putting real cuts in real GOP programs front and center.

[Cant trust em]

24. I question whether they'll accept some revenues in lieu of hated defense cuts.

I suspect that they'll prefer to have the cuts to triggered cuts to defense and make sure that no revenues are included. They put a higher premium on preventing revenue increases than preventing defense cuts. My concern is that if revenues aren't part of the trigger then there won't be any incentive for them to stay at the table.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. So? Don't we WANT massive defense cuts? And don't cuts to prized programs

in their districts make it much harder for them to get elected again?

The incentive is there. You're certainly right to say that whether this batch of nuts is moved by them is another question, but they will certainly be exposed as preferring tax cuts to defense and home district projects. I'm happy enough to see these cretins try to sell that.

[Cant trust em]

26. Devil's in the details at this point.

Obviously I'd rather have big cuts in defense. But I don't like the sound of across the board cuts. I still think that they look better to their base with big defense cuts and no tax increases. They clearly don't care about the country as a whole. They only care about their narrow constituency and ability to cling to power. They can achieve both of those goals without agreeing to anything and having automatic cuts kick in.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. I agree that the BBA is stupid, but what if...

...instead of forcing the government to balance the budget every year the amendment stated that the debt could not be held for more than one additional fiscal year (after the existing debt is paid down)?

This way any emergency spending that was needed could still be spent and simply budgeted to be paid off the next year (presumably with increased revenues).

So any deficit from 2011 would need to be budgeted to be paid off in 2012, then any deficit from 2012 would need to be budgeted to be paid off in 2013.

[DCBob]

14. we do not want a BBA.

[saras]

22. It's time to quit 'negotiating' and start disciplining.

I can't see any reason to give them anything at all. In fact, we could be setting up poison pill after poison pill for the Tea Party, making each stupid decision even more costly for them. Every time they act stupid in a negotiation, we should offer LESS, not MORE. Just tell them "well, you blew your chance for that by acting stupid. It's not going to get any better, so hurry up and come to your senses." But instead, the more irrationally they scream, thrash, and tantrum, the more caffeine-laced candy we give them.