•Should the government be required by law to balance the federal budget?

Question

Should the government be required by law to balance the federal budget? In other words, should Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, that is, an amendment to the Constitution that would require the federal government to balance the federal budget every year?

Answer 1

That would not be possible due to unforeseen circumstances. For example say there was a infiltration of the enemy in our nation, and there was an out and out civil war between the enemy and government. The budget is balanced, but 'just' balanced with no room for spending.

How then can they create funds for that war? The side of the government would have to lose because they could not change their amendment, without another amendment.

Actually, balancing the fiscal budget isn't logical for the present, nor into the future because of the fluctuation of pricing of products and services. However, I will say this...if these companies who provide products would not charge from $6-$15 dollars for a nut and bolt, it would be a heck of a lot easier to balance the budget. What I think they should do is go for the better price and the same quality. They have never given the smaller mfg the chance to prove themselves. That would be the best idea...is to insist that the gov. open bids on items they need after stating quality and quantity needed. That would help curb that excess spending.

Answer 2

Actually, if memory serves, it is my belief that until the first World War the U.S. operated on a balanced budget. Deficit spending didn't really take off (again, IIRC) until the Great Depression of the late 1920s - 1930s era, and of course since then we've generally carried a ridiculous amount of national indebtedness.

If it would take such an amendment, which should also include a flat percentage income tax to eliminate ALL the other idiot taxes which amount to legalized bribery to retain our property and buy our stuff, I would gladly pay it. The skim mechanism is already in place - it just hasn't been named for what it really is. I'd rather know that the money I take home is actually mine than continue to pay out taxes, tarrifs, surcharges ad nauseam. Finally, the amendment would have to include an absolute cap on the % of gross income siphoned off the top of my paycheck - say a flat 40%, although I am quite certain it wouldn't take more than 30%. Apply the same to businesses, small and large, wipe out all the other taxes (save luxury taxes on stuff like smokes, booze, overpriced rocks and vehicles, etc.) and the overall picture would likely see a massive upswing for the better.

Answer 3

Yes. They should also have to take pay cuts and get smaller staffs and a lot of other cost saving measures that will never be passed. We don't require a balanced budget because then you would be in the mess that States are in. Tax, Tax, Tax. No one will CUT THE WASTE.

Answer 4

No. People don't do that and neither should the government. Things come up. Suppose we had a balanced budget submitted and then Katrina happened? Suppose the country was attacked?
People run around with credit cards, but you believe we should have a BBA? Get real.

Answer 5

I think it should, but it will never fly. The social programs in this country would be cut so drastically that the Democrats would never vote for it, and the defense budget would be cut so much that the Republicans would never vote for it. The politicians know that people won't get as worked up over deficit spending as they would over losing social benefits.

Answer 6

Yes there should be.

Answer 7

YES