Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to force Congress to
balance the federal budget?
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
“Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to force Congress to balance the federal budget?” ” Yes: 3 No: 9
? Karen Anderson: “No. Congress needs flexibility in times of crisis. We don’t want a U.S. Constitution as messy as California’s.”
? Dave Appling: “No. Had such a provision been in effect in 1942, we’d all be speaking German or Japanese. Also the current recession would be a major depression. And the sponsors have no intention of doing what’s actually needed: increasing revenues as well as reducing expenditures. Duh. This proposal is just political posturing to the Tea Party. The sponsors are wasting the people’s time. They should be reviewing Macroeconomics 101 instead.”
? Chris Bryant: “Yes, unfortunately it appears to be the only way for a balanced budget to ever happen. Printing money endlessly is not a recipe for long-term stability.”
? Bob Chidester: “No. It is unrealistic to think we could balance the federal budget at this time given how much this country is in debt. I would be elated if the current administration and all other administrations (past and future) would just follow the Constitution as it exists now without any amendments or changes.”
? David Cohen: “No. While a balanced budget would be a good thing, making it a constitutional mandate would require the Congress to engage in an adult dialogue free of partisan bickering and I simply don’t believe that in today’s climate, that is possible.”
? Dennis Kennedy: “No! Long-term planning is needed to insure our country moves forward and can cope with the ups and downs of the economy. At times this may require allowing debt or deficits to occur in the long-term interests of the country; such as wars, recessions, natural disasters, etc. Any of these may require longer term debt than an annual balanced budget would allow.”
? Julian Mancias: “No. Leave our Constitution alone!”
? Henry Miller: “No! The Constitution was crafted to protect Americans, not to punish or limit us. Such a provision would have precluded our winning the World Wars, or overcoming the great depression and the recent recession. If we think this is such a good idea, why not amend the constitution to force congress to have a trillion-dollar surplus?”
? Jeff Nunes: “Yes. Unfortunately, we have probably come to this point. It has become apparent that our leaders on both sides of the aisle don’t have the political guts to do so otherwise. The current version of the amendment makes appropriate exceptions for the defense of the country and allows for a 3/5 vote of Congress to override the provision under certain circumstances, so it is a measured and prudent requirement and its time has come.”
? Lisa Pampuch: “No. As Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, ‘It is about the most irresponsible action imaginable. It would virtually ensure that an economic downturn would end up as a deep depression, by erasing any real ability of the government to pursue countercyclical fiscal policies and in fact demanding the opposite, at the worst possible time.’ ”
? Jeff Smith: “Yes it should. Common sense should tell anyone that habitually spending more than you have will lead to problems, and our national and state debts are big problems. Our lawmakers are unable to control themselves when it comes to spending other peoples money, so yes, we need an amendment to address this.”
? Steve Staloch: “No. It pains me to say that, but without the fiscal stimulus of the past three years, unemployment would have doubled and investor confidence in our economy would have tanked. True recovery will come when we begin creating real jobs, freeze or rollback entitlement programs, renegotiate unreasonable labor contracts, and reform laws that provide tax-dodging offshore shelters for companies like GE, Google and Microsoft.”Vote in
