Why are the Democrats against the Balanced Budget Amendment? Serious question. Wouldn't that be a good thing or would they just use "creative accounting" to fudge numbers?
As a bit of an aside from me...
As I've understood it, according to keynesian economic theories, a balanced budget might not always be a good thing. During economic downturns, as government revenue falls they need to slash spending to keep expenditure in line. The problem is that since the private sector is also cutting expenses at the same time, aggregate demand will fall and make the problem worse; since nobody is
bying, nobody will be able to
sell either. Keynesians usually see government fiscal policy as something of a moderating factor: frugal finances during good times, deficit spending during bad times. Balanced budgets
over the business cycle, not
over a given fiscal year.
I'm no economist and it's been awhile since my last uni course on the subject, but I think that's by and large the big idea behind the keynesian approach to these things. There are other approaches, of course.
CNSNews.com said:
This plan would increase the federal debt limit by $2.4 trillion in exchange for cutting federal spending by $111 billion next year and for congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment that, if ratified, would require supermajority votes in Congress to increase taxes, increase the debt limit, or spend more than 18 percent of GDP in a given fiscal year.
I don't know if that is there to allow the kind of keynesian deficit spending during bad times. It might be enough, or it might not be.