![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumAt least I hope not. I hope, and believe, it's election year posturing.
Why? Because passing it would be a disaster. It can't pass, which is what they want. They want to be able to say, "we tried to balance the budget, but the Dems wouldn't let us."
So what happens if it passes? The US becomes a second rate nation. We won't be able to do a damned thing. 18 percent of GDP isn't enough to run the gov't. It's not enough to keep the infrastructure intact (not that this is happening now). This is the theater of the politically correct. It is an article of faith among the Republican Base that a balanced budget is a fiscal necessity.
Never mind that in the times of crisis we've always needed to be able to borrow money against the future. The Revolution.... financed on a deficit. The Civil War.... financed on a deficit. Getting out of the Great Depression... financed on a deficit. World War 2... financed on a deficit.
That's one part of the insanity.
The next is the need to get all increases in tax revenue approved by a 2/3rds majority of both houses. In short... no new taxes, ever. Ok, perhaps not ever, but not enough to keep up. Why? A tax cut would need a simple majority, and we've all seen how even letting a tax cut sunset is met with shrieks and pearl-clutching at the hideous tax increases being discussed. Closing loopholes, and ending subsidies meets with the same sort of institutional horror.
Never mind that the last time anyone was able to produce a balanced budget it was a Democrat, using that tax set-up. Never mind that the Republican controlled legislative branch signed off on the wars, and the spending increases, from 2000 to 2008. Never mind that they had the chance then to pass such an proposed amendment. Nope, those were "necessary". Which is fine, so far as it goes, but this is saying that such a thing can never be allowed again; no matter how necessary.
That two-thirds rule is a problem. If you want to see how big a problem look at Calif. Prop. 13 (passed in 1978) put just such a limit on Calif. The only thing which has kept the state afloat has been the luck of having a lot of growth. Even with that the state budget has been in crisis mode, lurching from one band-aid to another for at least the past couple of decades. Sadly the ability to borrow money wasn't also put at the 2/3rds level, so a lot of bonds have been put out, to pay for things a simple tax (and Calif. is very good at passing short term taxes and letting them sunset) would have covered for less.
The last bit is that it's anti-democratic. That may be it's key feature to the Republicans in office. The nature of the political map right now is bad for them. The people who vote in the primaries, are getting more radical. That means the general election candidates tend to be less electable. This would allow a small number to have a disproportionate effect.
Again, look at Calif. Prop. 13 had that "super-majority" requirement to pass a budget. It wasn't until that was changed to a simple majority that a budget was passed on time. I can't recall how many times I've seen stories of Calif. state IOUs being issued in lieu of checks, because the gov't was shut down pending a budget.
The issue isn't "we need to be forced to balance the budget." It's how. The Grover Norquists of the world want us to believe all taxes are bad. That governments are just like households. But they also want us to never look for a better job. They want us to think of hedge funds as a different sort of income. They want us to think that a tax cut will lead to revenue increases (and they ignore that's been tried that it failed).
There are thing which serve the public good. We, the people, need to pay for them. That takes taxes, and making it impossible to raise the money we need for those things... is stupid.
Why? Because passing it would be a disaster. It can't pass, which is what they want. They want to be able to say, "we tried to balance the budget, but the Dems wouldn't let us."
So what happens if it passes? The US becomes a second rate nation. We won't be able to do a damned thing. 18 percent of GDP isn't enough to run the gov't. It's not enough to keep the infrastructure intact (not that this is happening now). This is the theater of the politically correct. It is an article of faith among the Republican Base that a balanced budget is a fiscal necessity.
Never mind that in the times of crisis we've always needed to be able to borrow money against the future. The Revolution.... financed on a deficit. The Civil War.... financed on a deficit. Getting out of the Great Depression... financed on a deficit. World War 2... financed on a deficit.
That's one part of the insanity.
The next is the need to get all increases in tax revenue approved by a 2/3rds majority of both houses. In short... no new taxes, ever. Ok, perhaps not ever, but not enough to keep up. Why? A tax cut would need a simple majority, and we've all seen how even letting a tax cut sunset is met with shrieks and pearl-clutching at the hideous tax increases being discussed. Closing loopholes, and ending subsidies meets with the same sort of institutional horror.
Never mind that the last time anyone was able to produce a balanced budget it was a Democrat, using that tax set-up. Never mind that the Republican controlled legislative branch signed off on the wars, and the spending increases, from 2000 to 2008. Never mind that they had the chance then to pass such an proposed amendment. Nope, those were "necessary". Which is fine, so far as it goes, but this is saying that such a thing can never be allowed again; no matter how necessary.
That two-thirds rule is a problem. If you want to see how big a problem look at Calif. Prop. 13 (passed in 1978) put just such a limit on Calif. The only thing which has kept the state afloat has been the luck of having a lot of growth. Even with that the state budget has been in crisis mode, lurching from one band-aid to another for at least the past couple of decades. Sadly the ability to borrow money wasn't also put at the 2/3rds level, so a lot of bonds have been put out, to pay for things a simple tax (and Calif. is very good at passing short term taxes and letting them sunset) would have covered for less.
The last bit is that it's anti-democratic. That may be it's key feature to the Republicans in office. The nature of the political map right now is bad for them. The people who vote in the primaries, are getting more radical. That means the general election candidates tend to be less electable. This would allow a small number to have a disproportionate effect.
Again, look at Calif. Prop. 13 had that "super-majority" requirement to pass a budget. It wasn't until that was changed to a simple majority that a budget was passed on time. I can't recall how many times I've seen stories of Calif. state IOUs being issued in lieu of checks, because the gov't was shut down pending a budget.
The issue isn't "we need to be forced to balance the budget." It's how. The Grover Norquists of the world want us to believe all taxes are bad. That governments are just like households. But they also want us to never look for a better job. They want us to think of hedge funds as a different sort of income. They want us to think that a tax cut will lead to revenue increases (and they ignore that's been tried that it failed).
There are thing which serve the public good. We, the people, need to pay for them. That takes taxes, and making it impossible to raise the money we need for those things... is stupid.
