Commentary Magazine


Contentions

20 Senate Dems Support Balanced Budget Amendment?

This Club for Growth video showing old clips of 20 Senate Democrats voicing “support” for a balanced budget amendment has been making the rounds lately. (Coincidentally, Senate Republicans have estimated that they need 20 Democrats to support the BBA in order for it to pass!)

And while the video might inspire false hope that the BBA has even the slightest chance of passing, it’s completely misleading. There are all types of balanced budget amendments, and the one Republicans have proposed would basically make certain GOP-favored economic policies constitutionally binding (spending below 18 percent of GDP, two-thirds majority approval for tax hikes). Democrats may support a balanced budget amendment, but almost certainly not that one.

As Phil Klein wrote last spring, “If you could get two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress and the support of 38 states for balancing the budget through spending cuts rather than tax increases, we wouldn’t even need to be having a debate over balancing the budget — lawmakers would just do it.”

And the BBA is more than just unnecessary, it could also complicate national security interests. Having the ability to run a deficit during wartime is critical, and the BBA would make this much more difficult. At the National Review, Rich Lowry writes:

[The BBA] allows for a waiver in fiscal years in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect… We haven’t declared war on anyone since World War II. The amendment’s exception wouldn’t have accounted for the Cold War or the War on Terror, neither of which entailed declarations of war on nation-states.

Another provision allows three-fifths of Congress to waive the amendment for expenditures related to a military conflict “that causes an imminent and serious threat to national security.” If you believe the Cold War or the War on Terror qualifies, this could have led to constant exceptions from 1947 to 1991, and from 2001 to perhaps the present.

The need for constant waivers during a conflict could dangerously hinder America’s ability to respond to imminent threats. And beyond that, it’s clear these loopholes and exceptions could be manipulated in a way that could render the entire amendment meaningless. The BBA isn’t going to happen anytime soon, and that’s probably a good thing.



Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.