Diary

Balanced Budget Amendment - sounds like a bad idea to me.

I don’t understand why something like a “balanced  budget amendment” is useful. Why should spending be limited to 18% of GDP? Why won’t Nancy, Harry and Barack, when they get back in office, manipulate the “GDP” number to make the budget bigger? Why not 2% of GDP? Why not 30%?

We can’t spend more than 18% unless congress votes to spend more than 18% — do I have that right?

Section 3 seems to give the “budget” to the President. I thought all revenue bills must originate in the House? Does BBA move taxing and spending to the office of the President?

Section 7 seems to neuter the entire resolution doesn’t it? Haven’t we been engaged in “military conflict” for most of the past 60 years?

Wouldn’t it be so much simpler and more effective to just shrink government?

For the life of me, I cannot see a justification to amend the Constitution of the United States to prevent the Nancy/Harry/Barack combination from overspending. What am I missing?

BBA is a bad idea. Stop spending money. Commit to spending only 5% of GDP in the Federal government and carry through.

Ed