2007-10-13 08:34:00 · 14 answers · asked by ♪ 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Why or why not?
2007-10-13 08:42:09 · update #1
Don't see why not. Most States have a constitutional requirement to balance their own budget. They manage.
2007-10-13 08:37:42 · answer #1 · answered by Dan H 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
President Bush used the "war" as an excuse to rescind all the Balanced Budget provisions of the Newt Gingrich era and go back to handing money out to his friends (and giving them all tax breaks at the same time).
PS: Yes, there should absolutely be an amendment to the US Constitution requiring a balanced Federal budget.
2007-10-13 09:16:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Politicians should balance the budget on their own. We, as voters, should make this a priority when we elect our Senators and Representatives.
Should there be an amendment to the Constitution to force a balanced budget? In my opinion, and I am a fiscal conservative, no. There are times of national crisis that the government needs to borrow money to deal with emergencies, just like the average person borrows money for unexpected car or home repairs, medical bills, etc.
2007-10-13 09:09:31 · answer #3 · answered by mouska7 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am not sure it needs to be an amendment, possibly just made a part of federal law. I agree it is needed except in time of crisis but I do not see it rising to the level of an amendment which I think should be limited to rights of Americans and checks and balances on the branches of government in general. Balanced budget is too specific.
2007-10-13 09:26:14 · answer #4 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
first you need to get the whole of government expenditures on the budget , many things are off budget
ssi
allot of defense programs
are just2 but they are a really big 2
full disclosure is the first step , then yes only in time of war or disaster , should they be allowed to run a deficit. there should be a balance budget and a amendment would help but still wouldn't stop it
2007-10-13 09:07:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
actually, each and every state different than Vermont has a call for to stability its funds. As California's occasion shows, having a Balanced funds requirement interior the form does not particularly help.
2016-11-08 05:22:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Because that would extremely cut the budget for just about every program the US currently has.
2007-10-13 10:04:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I definitely think so. I also think that earmarks should not be allowed on pending bills, to be signed into law. Each issue should have its own bill.
2007-10-13 09:31:22 · answer #8 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no point since politicians these days ignore the constitution and all it stand for.
2007-10-13 08:36:23 · answer #9 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Like the one for owning guns?
2007-10-13 08:37:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋