Is a Balanced Budget Amendment Inevitable?

[Free Bird]

Doesn't matter what you personally think of one. There is a movement to call a CotS to make one that is nearing the 34 needed, and there is vocal support in Congress. Is one coming no matter what, and if so, when and how will it pass?

[Ebsy]

It's a stupid idea that will never happen.

[Blue3]

Sane politicians realize that, while it might be ideal, in practice it would never work. It's basically giving the court system the power to decide the budget, if there's ever a deficit.

Not to mention that it's unfeasible if there's ever a big war, or if there's another financial crash.

And the Republican ideas of tying a BBA to making it harder to raise taxes too is just partisan fantasy.

[Intell]

This will be really dumb, if it passes.

[Sir Mohamed]

No, will never happen. The GOP wants spending on the millitary and Dems on social programs.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No because amendments are a huge pain in the arse to pass

[Free Bird]

No because amendments are a huge pain in the arse to pass

Hence the convention of the states movement that only has 7 more to go IIRC

[Ebsy]

How stupid do you have to be to think a CONVENTION OF THE STATES is actually going to happen in 2015?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No because amendments are a huge pain in the arse to pass

Hence the convention of the states movement that only has 7 more to go IIRC

I'm willing to bet that won't happen.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No because amendments are a huge pain in the arse to pass

Hence the convention of the states movement that only has 7 more to go IIRC

I'm willing to bet that won't happen.

If only because if it gets to the point where it looks like a convention might be called, Congress will send a BBA to the States to avoid a convention. That's what happened with the 17th Amendment.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Probably not in the near future.  This is one of those ideas that gets talked about, but is never acted on.  And why should it be?  Congress has a responsibility to balance the federal budget, whether the law requires it or not.  Most states already have balanced budget requirements, and many of them do NOT currently have balanced budgets.  So what makes anyone think it'll work at the federal level, where spending is even more out of control?

[Ebsy]

Probably not in the near future.  This is one of those ideas that gets talked about, but is never acted on.  And why should it be?  Congress has a responsibility to balance the federal budget, whether the law requires it or not.  Most states already have balanced budget requirements, and many of them do NOT currently have balanced budgets.  So what makes anyone think it'll work at the federal level, where spending is even more out of control?

I am alarmed that I agree with Naso.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Also keep in mind that while only 34 states are needed to propose an amendment, 38 are needed to actually pass one.

[Maxwell]

There's not popular support for it and even if there was it would still be a bad idea.

[Ebsy]

Probably not in the near future.  This is one of those ideas that gets talked about, but is never acted on.  And why should it be?  Congress has a responsibility to balance the federal budget, whether the law requires it or not.  Most states already have balanced budget requirements, and many of them do NOT currently have balanced budgets.  So what makes anyone think it'll work at the federal level, where spending is even more out of control?

I am alarmed that I agree with Naso.

Uh, Naso is the user ReaganFan. Oldies Freak is someone else.

Sorry, my mistake.

[Slander and/or Libel]

No because amendments are a huge pain in the arse to pass

Hence the convention of the states movement that only has 7 more to go IIRC

I'm willing to bet that won't happen.

If only because if it gets to the point where it looks like a convention might be called, Congress will send a BBA to the States to avoid a convention. That's what happened with the 17th Amendment.

Right, exactly. From what I understand, once a convention is called, there's no means by which it can be limited to the one issue that spurred its being called. Nobody wants a convention.

[Free Bird]

No because amendments are a huge pain in the arse to pass

Hence the convention of the states movement that only has 7 more to go IIRC

I'm willing to bet that won't happen.

If only because if it gets to the point where it looks like a convention might be called, Congress will send a BBA to the States to avoid a convention. That's what happened with the 17th Amendment.

Right, exactly. From what I understand, once a convention is called, there's no means by which it can be limited to the one issue that spurred its being called. Nobody wants a convention.

27 States and counting do

[Ebsy]

No because amendments are a huge pain in the arse to pass

Hence the convention of the states movement that only has 7 more to go IIRC

I'm willing to bet that won't happen.

If only because if it gets to the point where it looks like a convention might be called, Congress will send a BBA to the States to avoid a convention. That's what happened with the 17th Amendment.

Right, exactly. From what I understand, once a convention is called, there's no means by which it can be limited to the one issue that spurred its being called. Nobody wants a convention.

27 States and counting do

No, they think they want a convention. Any constitutional convention held in the current climate would be a total sh**t show, no doubts about it.

[SteveRogers]

No because amendments are a huge pain in the arse to pass

Hence the convention of the states movement that only has 7 more to go IIRC

I'm willing to bet that won't happen.

If only because if it gets to the point where it looks like a convention might be called, Congress will send a BBA to the States to avoid a convention. That's what happened with the 17th Amendment.

Right, exactly. From what I understand, once a convention is called, there's no means by which it can be limited to the one issue that spurred its being called. Nobody wants a convention.

27 States and counting do

No, they think they want a convention. Any constitutional convention held in the current climate would be a total sh**t show, no doubts about it.

Not to mention that those 27 states aren't  necessarily all thinking of the same Balanced Budget Amendment. Recall that what the Tea Party folks are often advocating is not in fact a clean balanced budget amendment but rather a bunch of other nonsense wrapped up in a balanced budget amendment (spending caps, supermajority requirement to raise taxes (lol), etc.).

[Bojack Horseman]

Nope.

[publicunofficial]

The right's proposals for a balanced budget amendment all essentially amount to "Codify the GOP spending platform into law", spending caps, making it impossible to levy taxes, the list goes on. It'd be the most overtly partisan amendment in history.