Quote:
Originally Posted by Honus
Writing a budget is the ultimate act of public policy making. The budget is a statement of priorities. We will spend less on some things and more on others based on their relative importance. That's policy making. In addition to setting priorities, policy makers in tough economic times might decide to run a deficit. In good times, it might be the government's policy to have a budget that is unbalanced to the surplus side. That sort of decision will change with the times and is not the sort of thing that is traditionally set forth in the Constitution.
The balanced budget amendment that Rand Paul and his friends scribbled on the back of an envelope and demanded be included in the budget deal is a fricking mess. Here it is: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hjres1ih/pdf/BILLS-112hjres1ih.pdf
It says, among other things: "...Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed one-fifth the economic output of the United States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase in outlays above this amount..."
Can you imagine the games that future administrations would play trying to squeeze the "total outlays" into that definition? It would be an annual debacle. This is policy making, no way around it. It has no business in the Constitution.True. |
Each portion of the constitution has games played about it. Here's a hint: Every year the Supreme Court goes into session because laws conflict with the constitution. The reality is already what you fear.
The Congress and president have clearly demonstrated their inability to control their appetites over the previous 50 years. There is no indication that the congress or president have suddenly got religion. In a few months they will go back to log rolling and earmarking. It will be an election year and the cycle of increasing indebtedness will resume.
If congress cannot control itself, who will control congress?