Do you favor a constitutional amendment requiring the Federal government to balance its budget each year?

Question

Why or why not?

Answer 1

It may surprise you to know that the only two presidents who left office with a balanced budget were Andrew Jackson ,and Bill Clinton. But yes, I would favor an amendment like that. Imagine if the country was run like a business?

Answer 2

I don't know. Why? Well, for each new administration, they have "balanced" the budget. Then something happens and that all goes to hell.

Maybe if we require each year that so much of the federal debt is paid off, so that it gets lowered. That might mean tightening the belt a little of the big spenders (the military comes to mind), but in the end, I think it is well worth it.

Answer 3

I am in favor of a balanced budget amendment that would allow for deficit spending only with a 4/5ths supermajority vote. If you can get 80% of Congress to agree that something is important enough to go into debt over, then it probably is.

Answer 4

Nixon balanced his 1970 Budget by making the Social Security Trust Fund a part of the Unified Federal Budget. He financed the war in Viet Nam by doing what Teamsters Leaders have done for years raid the pension program . Thank God Bush can't do that, he will just spend money like a drunken sailor, oops that is demeaning to drunken sailors.come to think of it, He probably knows a few drunken sailors.

Answer 5

No. A balanced budget would cripple the government's ability to respond to a tragedy or other drastic problem. Forfeiting the flexibility that deficit spending affords would cost us more in political capital than would be saved economically.
We need more transparent spending and we need to not treat the budget as a commons. In Minnesota, just because Oberstar can help us get commuter rail through federal subsidies, that doesn't mean he should. We need to be fiscally responsible, even when it's not the "other guy" getting the money.

I am a liberal.

Answer 6

Absolutely! If we have to as citizens, then they must as a government. If that means culling a Representative's or Senator's staff from 24 to 1, then wah friggin' wah! Get over it, you fat, greasy swine! We the People are back in town!

The only time I could see allowing the budget to go into the red would be in times of declared war or states of emergency.

Answer 7

Balance the budget yes, payoff the national debt, no. This country went into debt intentionally to spur business growth, and I'm sure the concept still works today, but we don't need to let it spin out of control. It's not all that different than personal debt. Personal debt that is controllable is actually better than not being in debt at all, but letting debt get out of control is disasterous.

Answer 8

No. In times of urgency it could be a crippling impediment.

I favor the enforcement of spending caps, unfortunately, the foxes are guarding the Hen House and ignore them. Congress must suffer consequences for their actions. Out-of-control spending is the problem that must be controlled.

Answer 9

I would love to see that. We do they should, then maybe all the lost money would actually get accounted for. Our politicians still have yet to learn fiscal responsibility and it needs to happen, that might be the only way to make them learn

Answer 10

I would with a special allowance for times of war or disaster.