Talk:Balanced budget amendment

Cleanup
This article is in desperate need of better organization, as it does not have headings or subheadings -Medude24
 * Sorry- it actually doesn't need cleaning up, it just needs to be wikified. I changed the tag accordingly. --Medude24 05:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge text parts to "Deficit spending" article
I suggest merging some of the stuff about deficit spending to, well, deficit spending. There can probably be some blurbs about how this amendment might stop (or not stop) the practice, and (well-cited) opinions and statements about the bill. Since deficit spending has its own article, the entire history of it shouldn't be there, I think.

Furthermore, the Amendment text should probably be in Wikisource instead. (UPDATE: It was already in Wikisource, here. The text will be deleted, and a link to Wikisource will be added. --AnOddName 02:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

I'll see what I can do... --AnOddName 02:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a section on the history (1970's to 1990's) and status of the attempt by the states to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing a balanced budget amendment. Over 30 states endorsed the call for a convention, a few short of what was needed. Is that project still viable - or subject to being restarted? 67.171.195.39 05:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Very liberal and democratic based. It is the Clinton Era and the Bush Administration. I found wikipedia farily biased until this article. I wont even help fix it.

This Article needs to be rewritten
This article reads like a history of budget deficits in the United States, instead of a history of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. --71.146.41.174 03:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement, although I add that this has actually become a history of the U.S. DEBT rather than deficit, which is slightly more off topic.

I should also add that this may represent a personal bias on the part of the author, as current public debates that mention a balanced budget amendment often use the size of the federal government's debt as an argument for enacting a balanced budget amendment. Thus, the current content of the article may be designed to enhance this line of argument. SamGensburg (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup
There are several capitalization errors in this article and one sentance which makes no sense. Other parts of this article have a few unencyclopedic statements ("the maverick presidential bid by H. Ross Perot") which have some POV.70.242.165.24 01:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reform of the Article
As I have had time and motivation, I have been rewriting this article to one about its ostensible subject, BBAs. I will be inserting the text of the August 1982 SJR at the beginning of “Text”, and continuing to add to “History”. Some thought will ultimately have to be given to the content that were already here (before some vandal or accident-prone person pretty-much blanked the page); as some else noted, it isn't so much about a BBA per se as about deficit spending. —12.72.69.132 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Tax Revenue
"In his final State of the Union, President Clinton said the USA should continue to balance its books and pay off the debt entirely. The subsequent technology downturn which began impacting the economy in mid-2000 combined with lost revenue from the Bush Administration's tax cuts as well as the cost to the country from the 9/11 attack and increased spending for domestic and international programs have eliminated Clinton-era surpluses and both the deficit and debt have grown to the largest in US history. However, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit is not the largest in US history."

Did the Bush tax cuts really lower tax revenue?

Revenue Grapgh

This graph from the Heritage Foundation shows revenue actually rising. Which is it really? --Jayson Virissimo 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? It clearly shows a downturn in revenue from 2000 to 2004. -- 68.146.220.249 (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusion
There is a difference between wanting the US to pay back its debt and wanting to have a Constitutional amendment banning a budget deficit (the latter wouldn't have allowed the WWII spending, for instance), yet this article fails to distinguish this difference. Arronax50 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

History
In the history section does anyone know the two states that are mentioned in this sentence: "Since 1980, two additional state legislatures have petitioned Congress for a convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment, bringing the total number of participating states to 32." ? Rickety (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Error
"Although tax revenues reached a record high in 2007, increased military and other spending have eliminated late 1990's-era surpluses. Both the deficit and debt grew to the largest in U.S. history, although not as a percentage of GDP. In fiscal years starting September 30, 2002 and ending September 30, 2004 the national debt increased nearly 50%."

Accurate so far, I think.

The Bush Administration and a Republican Congress cut the national debt in half over the next two years.

Whoops ! No, don't think so. Please note this segment has no attribution. At that time, the National Debt would have been about $8 Trillion.

So we're supposed to believe that a wartime Congress with rapidly mounting unpaid wartime bills somehow found an extra $4 Trillion in their couch cushions?

Perhaps the original poster meant Deficit rather than Debt ? Because the Republican Congress certainly did NOT cut the Debt.

"On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4486228-500803.html

Jkirk3279 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The section that talks about 'deficits under Bush and Obama' needs work. This is what it says under Bush's bio on Wikipedia,' By October 2008, due to increases in domestic and foreign spending,[100] the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion,[101][102] an increase of over 100% from the start of the year 2000 when the debt was $5.6 trillion.[103][104] By the end of Bush's presidency, unemployment climbed to 7.2%.[105] The perception of Bush's effect on the economy is significantly affected by partisanship.[106]' So, did he balance the budget like it says for four years? I never heard that. Also, it mentions the budget for Obama what it 'might' be after he has been in office for a year. I think it should have more of Bush's information as he LEFT office to be fair to Obama's information. Bush info has citations on his bio. The section under this balanced budget about Bush has NO citations.Mylittlezach (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the section has now been altered to "The Bush Administration and a Republican Congress cut the deficist in half over the next two years"

I only wish I knew what a "deficist" is. Is that like a Deficit? :)

Another statement caught my eye.

"The 2006 deficit was the smallest deficit since a $159 billion imbalance in 2002, a shortfall that came after four straight years of budget surpluses, the longest stretch that the government had finished with surpluses in seven decades.[citation needed]"

Hmmm.

Looking at "http://www.scribd.com/doc/3015540/US-Budget-Deficit-or-Surplus-1960present" I find the assertion to be unlikely.

In the madness of unfunded War Spending, can we call a short-term spike that never broke even a real surplus?

Remember, this is the same article where somebody was calling the Clinton Surplus an "illusion".

Should we hold the Bush data to a lower standard?Jkirk3279 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bill Clinton
"During the second term of President Bill Clinton at the end of the twentieth century, the illusion had been created of a surplus budget".... That seems to violate NPOV to me. Can anyone confirm this assertion? If so, I still think it ought to be rephrased (eg: "While Clinton was lauded for balancing the budget, critics pointed out that in actuality..") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seyon (talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say merely that he was "lauded" for it, he spoke out taking credit for it himself. And, if you follow the citation, you will read that an illusion of a surplus was created. Using "illusion" I think is specifically important here. The Presidential office made a speech and sent out press releases of the "first ever balanced budget in decades." Yet it wasn't actually balanced. And furthermore, to a lay-person it would appear balanced, hence, the proper and perfect use of the word "illusion." --Omalley576 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For the average reader not interested in nuance, it is confusing that the article says, in the section on President Johnson, "This was the last time the United States would see a balanced budget," when the latter years of the Clinton administration showed budget surpluses, even if there was some illusion involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsuo (talk • contribs) 02:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

POV Issues
"In short, under the Obama administration we have seen the highest debt, deficit and debt as % of GDP in our nation's history."

Seriously people, get off your soapbox and use a scholarly third person point of view. First person pronouns have no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.207.126.71 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nixon
Article says Nixon enacted the first peacetime price controls. Isn't this just a technicality due to the Vietnam war not be declared by congress? Nixon was not a peacetime president. 173.218.156.160 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * U.S. involvment ended before Nixon left office. 62.178.24.168 (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Balanced Budget in Pennsylvania?
Although the article states that all states (except Vermont) have "some kind of balanced budget" requirement, I can't find any such in the Pennsylvania constition (http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html). The Pa. constitution clearly allows the state to incur debt:

''Commonwealth Indebtedness ''Section 7.

''(a) No debt shall be incurred by or on behalf of the Commonwealth except by law and in accordance with the provisions of this section.

''(1) Debt may be incurred without limit to suppress insurrection, rehabilitate areas affected by man-made or natural disaster, or to implement unissued authority approved by the electors prior to the adoption of this article.

''(2) The Governor, State Treasurer and Auditor General, acting jointly, may

''(i) issue tax anticipation notes having a maturity within the fiscal year of issue and payable exclusively from revenues received in the same fiscal year, and (ii) incur debt for the purpose of refunding other debt, if such refunding debt matures within the term of the original debt.

''(3) Debt may be incurred without limit for purposes specifically itemized in the law authorizing such debt, if the question whether the debt shall be incurred has been submitted to the electors and approved by a majority of those voting on the question.

''(4) Debt may be incurred without the approval of the electors for capital projects specifically itemized in a capital budget, if such debt will not cause the amount of all net debt outstanding to exceed one and three-quarters times the average of the annual tax revenues deposited in the previous five fiscal years as certified by the Auditor General. For the purposes of this subsection, debt outstanding shall not include debt incurred under clauses (1) and (2) (i), or debt incurred under clause (2) (ii) if the original debt would not be so considered, or debt incurred under subsection (3) unless the General Assembly shall so provide in the law authorizing such debt.

''(b) All debt incurred for capital projects shall mature within a period not to exceed the estimated useful life of the projects as stated in the authorizing law, and when so stated shall be conclusive. All debt, except indebtedness permitted by clause (2) (i), shall be amortized in substantial and regular amounts, the first of which shall be due prior to the expiration of a period equal to one-tenth the term of the debt.

''(c) As used in this section, debt shall mean the issued and outstanding obligations of the Commonwealth and shall include obligations of its agencies or authorities to the extent they are to be repaid from lease rentals or other charges payable directly or indirectly from revenues of the Commonwealth. debts shall not include either (1) that portion of obligations to be repaid from charges made to the public for the use of the capital projects financed, as determined by the Auditor General, or (2) obligations to be repaid from lease rentals or other charges payable by a school district or other local taxing authority, (3) obligations to be repaid by agencies or authorities created for the joint benefit of the Commonwealth and one or more other State governments.

''(d) If sufficient funds are not appropriated for the timely payment of the interest upon and installments of principal of all debt, the State Treasurer shall set apart from the first revenues thereafter received applicable to the appropriate fund a sum sufficient to pay such interest and installments of principal, and shall so apply the money so set apart. The State Treasurer may be required to set aside and apply such revenues at the suit of any holder of Commonwealth obligations.''

I haven't checked any other states, but I have a feeling all states have the ability to issue bonds and incur debt. So what exactly is meant by statements such as "every state requires a balanced budget"? Can someone please clarify this for the article? Thanks.70.179.90.182 (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Deficits under George W. Bush and Barack Obama
A small point, but this line seems erroneous, even after the correction of the POV issue:

"The Obama administration has overseen the highest debt, deficit and debt as % of GDP in the nation's history."

The key measure is debt as % of GDP, which has not yet become the highest in the nation's history. According to the OMB (Table 7.1), gross debt and net debt in 1945, 1946, and 1947 were higher.

--ThisGuy13 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

German debt break
There is a very detailed article in de WP on the German debt break: de:Schuldenbremse (Deutschland); anyone who wants to include this precious information in en WP is invited to do so by translating that article and extending the section on the situation in Germany in this current article or by creating a new article specifically for the German debt break. --Proofreader (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Another argument against balanced budgets: harm to long term investing by government
The article is incomplete. In particular, it's common practice by most homeowners and many well-run businesses to take out long term loans in order to make investments they expect will provide a good return over the long run. Home mortgages are an example. (If they didn't borrow to invest, banks would not exist, and the tightened loan policies banks enacted in 2009 would not have damaged the economy.) Return On Investment (ROI) is the key... it makes no fiscal sense to ban government borrowing that would fund investments expected to have a positive ROI. Some plausible examples are transportation infrastructure, education, sustainable cleaner energy, and preventative health care. (Of course, ROI depends on the details. A bridge to nowhere will not be worth its cost.) Since long term investments benefit future generations too--perhaps even more, sometimes, than they benefit the current generation--the argument by BBA proponents that it's unethical to expect future generations to help pay off the "loan" is weak.

The private sector can't be expected to make up for a lack of government investment. See Mancur Olson's book The Logic of Collective Action which predicts (among other things) underinvestment in public goods if left to the private sector. SEppley (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Balanced Budget Amendment → Balanced budget amendment –

Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. It's about bbas in a number of countries. Matches the formatting of related article titles. Tony  (talk)  10:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Balanced budget amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613063403/http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8KMJBT81&show_article=1 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8KMJBT81&show_article=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Relevance
Much of this article goes into detail about the budget in the last few administrations. What does that have to do with a Balanced Budget Amendment? It has much to do with a balanced budget but an article on a balanced budget in the United States could be quite lengthy and too detailed. Regardless, it's not germane to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elminstersage (talk • contribs) 15:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Balanced budget amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125015646/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925171829/http://www.c-spanarchives.org/clip/3666049 to http://www.c-spanarchives.org/clip/3666049
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19990427174200/http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html to http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Balanced budget amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140820150126/http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Capital%20Budgeting%20in%20the%20States.pdf to http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Capital%20Budgeting%20in%20the%20States.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)