Does the United States Need a Balanced Budget Amendment? >
We Don't Need a Balanced Budget Amendment
The Constitution restricts federal spending already
November 23, 2011
About Tad DeHaven:
Tad DeHaven is a budget analyst on federal and state budget issues for the Cato Institute. Previously he was a deputy director of the Indiana Office of Management and Budget. DeHaven also worked as a budget policy adviser to Sens. Jeff Sessions and Tom Coburn. In 2010, he was named to Florida Gov. Rick Scott's Economic Advisory Council.
The Constitution already places strict limits on what the federal government can and cannot do. The problem is that those limits have become stretched over the years to the point that the federal government can do pretty much what it pleases. As a result, Americans have become accustomed to, and dependent upon, the federal government to supervise their lives from cradle to grave.
Most Republicans are about as enthusiastic to confront this reality as most Democrats are in reversing it. Thus, the convenient resurgence in popularity for a balanced budget amendment on the part of Republicans has been driven by an unwillingness—or inability—to flesh out exactly what federal agencies and programs would have to do in order to bring the budget into balance without raising taxes.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]
Indeed, it's not a coincidence that the balanced budget amendment wasn't a priority for Republicans when they were jacking up spending and debt during George W. Bush's tenure. Now that the Obama Democrats have done the Republicans one better on the fiscal profligacy front, the GOP is really just looking to score political points for the November 2012 elections by hoisting up the balanced budget amendment as a litmus test for fiscal propriety.
However, the purpose of the balanced budget amendment is to put an end to budget deficits, and deficits are only a symptom of the real problem: too much spending. Therefore, Republicans who support the balanced budget amendment cannot cite it as evidence that they're serious about cutting spending unless they're prepared to detail what they would cut in order to bring the budget into balance.
[Read: GOP Frosh Slam "Hypocrisy" from Democrats on Balanced Budget Bill.]
While proponents of the balanced budget amendment argue that it would also reign in spending, almost all the states possess balanced budget requirements and that hasn't stopped state spending from continuing to increase. In fact, the balanced budget amendment would actually end up solidifying the oversized and overbearing federal government we have today. Therefore, policymakers who truly desire a federal government that is smaller in size and scope should concentrate their efforts on convincing the American people that the country would be better off.
- Read about how the super committee failure will affect you.
- See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.
- Read Robert Schlesinger on the upside down 2012 politics of the economy and the deficit.
- Other Arguments
-
#16530
Yes — A well-designed constitutional amendment would prevent overspending, and worse
DAVID PRIMO, Senior Scholar at George Mason University's Mercatus Center
-
#24326
Yes — Spending controls would force Washington to act responsibly
ORRIN HATCH, Senior U.S. Senator from Utah
-
#34143
No — Don't blame the Consitution for the incompetence of politicians
SCOTT LILLY, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress
-
#52344
No — Political gimmick has potentially disastrous consequences for the nation
PATRICK SHARMA, Postdoctoral Fellow in the Regional Oral History Office of the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley
-
#61347
No — Limits would sabotage the government's ability to pull the nationout of an economic downturn
STEVE WAMHOFF, Policy Analyst for ITEP and the Legislative Director of Citizens for Tax Justice
