What is the difference between a balanced budget amendment and never

[Marston]

I believe the balanced budget amendment has an exemption clause for war of something of that sort. Default wouldn't allow for that.

[Marston]

I believe the balanced budget amendment has an exemption clause for war of something of that sort. Default wouldn't allow for that.

We are are war, and have been for the past 10 years.

I think you missed my point or perhaps I need to be clearer. The proposed balanced budget amendment allows for deficit spending via the overseas contingency fund. If we defaulted on our obligations, the Treasury, President, or whoever would have to prioritize payments.

You said that the amendment would require the budget to be "constantly balanced". That isn't true when it allows for deficit spending for wars. Defaulting does not.  

As such, the two are not exactly the same thing. Just pointing that out.

[Marston]

I believe the balanced budget amendment has an exemption clause for war of something of that sort. Default wouldn't allow for that.

We are are war, and have been for the past 10 years.

I think you missed my point or perhaps I need to be clearer. The proposed balanced budget amendment allows for deficit spending via the overseas contingency fund. If we defaulted on our obligations, the Treasury, President, or whoever would have to prioritize payments.

You said that the amendment would require the budget to be "constantly balanced". That isn't true when it allows for deficit spending for wars. Defaulting does not.  

As such, the two are not exactly the same thing. Just pointing that out.

A couple of points

1) Why are you talking about defaulting? Not raising the debt limit is not the same as defaulting. We would not default in either case. Stuff like Social Security would be cut, as Ernest said above.

2) Do you have a link to the overseas contingency stuff?

UPDATE: Here we have the text of an amendment introduced in January. This one makes no mention of overseas contingency spending, but it does reference military conflict caused by ... "imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law."

In other words, something that would have been adopted on September 12, 2001 (in this version).

The rest of the amendment refers to 3/5ths majorities. Basically it's attempting the Californization of US fiscal politics.

I was talking about defaulting in regards to some of our obligations, not the National Debt. I know, not the right use of 'default' per se but, hey, that's the term the pols and talking heads are using and it's rubbing off.

You're right on the rest. There is no specific mention about the Overseas Contingency Fund.

I found this, also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

   

and this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://crfb.org/blogs/scales-tip-among-senate-gop-balanced-budget-amendment

So, it does indeed require an affirmative act of Congress to run deficits. I don't like all this 2/3rds and 3/5ths stuff. Look at how dysfunctional our government is right now with just the one 3/5ths cloture rule in the Senate!