Should Democrats push for a "Balanced Budget Amendment"?

[Toots]

They were in fairly strong opposition when Republicans tried to pass such a thing and during Clinton we had a balanced budget so the point was moot. We actuall started to pay down our debt and the National Debt Clock had been shut down. Now ever since Bush* came to power the clock has been restarted and it is such a blur it can't really be read. We pay more in interest on our debt than all social programs combined and interest rates are at historic lows. What happens when interest rates rise? Every cent of the US Treasury will go to pay interest...Interest rates will not stay low. When a Democrat gets elected President they will rise and rise just as they did under Clinton. It is the way Republicans have of underming a Democratic president..

[dmallind]

1. The answers will be telling.

As one of the despised Blue Dog types I quite intuitively say "yes". The crowding out effect of the US government being the major seller of debt/consumer of capital is one of the cruelest systemic impacts to the middle and working classes. If the US was not borrowing so much the money would be available at much lower cost to the people. That's one big reason.

Another big reason is that reducing interest payments - now a VERY large part of the budget - frees up discretionary spending for projects which via the multiplier effect create good economic ripples. Having the money to build a bridge gets you a nice safe bridge sure, but it also gets the construction company to hire people, buy equipment, buy steel and cement and chemicals and so on. If the government is instead paying interest to the Chinese banks with that money, that creates far fewer jobs.

Another of course is taxes. As Democrats we're not supposed to be focused on lower taxes so much, but who here can honestly say that they would not prefer to pay less if we can get the same, or even better, services at the same time? How to do that - again reduce the debt payments. With every dollar we save on interest, we could spend 50c on projects and services and use 50c to cut taxes, until we find the correct equilibrium. Remember too that lower taxes (and make no mistake I'd start lowering middle and working class taxes not top-bracket rates) free up more money to drive more consumption or more savings - none of which is bad for the economy.

You may get some arguments from those much further to the left economically that we should not worry about balanced budgets while there are poor people who need help and poor government services/infrastructure that need improvement. There is even short-term merit in that position. Long term however a government with less debt can do these things far more effectively.

[endarkenment]

2. No.

Balanced budgets are invariably balanced on the backs of working families. The way to reduce the annual deficit is to end our insane military spending spree by reducing the scope of our military's mission to defending our borders and working in cooperation with international organizations to keep the planet's trade routes safe. That should allow us to cut our military spending by 70-90%. Next we should stop incarcerating people for non-violent victimless 'crimes', and let all of those we currently have in prison for these non-crimes out. This should help both federal and state governments reduce the insane costs of the corrupt prison industrial complex. Then, if we still cannot afford decent social benefits such as universal healthcare and universal higher education, an increase in taxes on the very wealthy would be in order.

[mqbush]

3. Balanced budget

A pay-as-you-go, balanced budget law (whether or not through
constitutional amendment) is essential, as we could have
another Bush again some day, who would finish the job of
breaking the US.

[JHB]

8. It won't matter to another Bush...

...considering how much attention THIS Bush pays towards laws he doesn't like, such a law would hardly stop a hypothetical 'nother Bush. He'd find a way to circumvent it.


What a balanced budget law would wind up doing is further neglect of our infrastructure.

[OHdem10]

4. Go ahead ---Snatch Defeat from the jaws of victory.

Many Americans know and understand all too well.

Balance Budget, Cut Spending Cut Taxes you are on the way
to destroying any safety net. SS and Medicare. Republican Goal.
Of course, many always vote with GOP.

It is irresonsible for any party or candidate to make wild eyed
promises on the budget. You look totally out of touch with
what is going on in the Middle Class in this country.

Herbert Hoover should make you think.

[Bandit]

10. Most every state has such

They haven't been destroyed as yet..

[gratuitous]

5. No

This has been another edition of short answers to obvious questions.

[mqbush]

6. Balanced budget

We need a pay-as-you-go balanced budget requirement to save
the US from another Bush finishing the job of bringing down
the country.  Cheney says "deficits don't matter." 
Not in some Reagan-polishing fantasy, maybe, but in the real
world, they do matter.

[mqbush]

7. Whoops

Sorry, I thought the dog ate my first comment.

[kentuck]

9. No.

They should only go so far as to say they will make dramatic decreases in the deficits fo Bush and the Republicans. That should not be hard to do.