Unbalanced Bunglers
Email This Post
Print This Post
budget, n. A fiscal system for ensuring that spending reaches a predefined limit even if the organization’s income doesn’t.
Only the young believe in the Easter Bunny or Government Fiscal Responsibility, though the former is vastly more probable.
When America devolved into a mere democracy, and the limited list of powers held by congress were expanded further than Chuck Schumer’s ego, every politician who understood basic bribery went to the highest bidder. Once government became an elaborate tool for theft, spending restraint matched Bill Clinton’s chubby chick restraint, which was none. The last two presidents have been unmatched in their money laundering prowess, with Bush handing Hank Paulson nearly a trillion dollars and Barack Obama providing equal political payback by keeping government union employees on the payroll during a recession.
Oddly, Washington’s occasional spurt of fiscal forbearance is nearly as insane as its more natural state.
Upon occasion (e.g., when politically opportune) well meaning or conniving politicians call for a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget, a stunt slightly more difficult than adjusting planetary orbits. Since Congress Critters cannot arrest their errant spending of your money, and monies yet to be earned by your (great, grand) children, some people stipulate that a constitutional prohibition against deficit spending is in order. The notion is that Congress will obey a new clause in the Constitution in exactly the same way that they have not before.
Rumbling about in Capital Hill hallways is a joint resolution to proffer state ratification of a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. If passed and ratified, the amendment would allegedly disallow Congress to spend more that it receives in revenues, and that total government spending could not exceed 18% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Like many schemes, the utter failure of the operation is predictable.
Foremost, there is no mention of how the GDP is calculated. Congress funds the Commerce Department to estimate annual GDP, and like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), could dictate how estimates are calculated. Nothing prevents the cabal known as Congress from rigging the estimating scheme to match their spending addiction. This is the preferred Cannon Office Building parlor game played with the CBO, where Congress pulls economic assumptions out of their southern-most orifice to estimate the financial impact of legislation. Congress could as easily instruct the Commerce Department on how to calculate GDP, spending, or the depth of teeth marks on Barney Frank’s fanny.
Definitions (social ‘security’, ‘assault weapons’, ‘defense department’) are too flexible to entrust to politicians, which is why they want you to.
Worse yet is that congress could override the amendment with a 2/3rds vote. This clause was placed to placate people who fear Congress would simply ignore the amendment as they have the other 27. Yet this is a minor impediment as Congress has routinely voted exceptions for nearly everything (most of the Iraq war was not budgeted, but executed instead through off-budget resolutions). Anything short of mandatory crucifixion would prevent Congress for voting annual overrides. The same system applies to hiking taxes, which also faces the 2/3rds vote barrier, though congress voting in favor of new taxes might trigger the aforementioned martyrdom.
Yet all this is immaterial because the proposed amendment has a gaping loophole enshrined in section seven, wherein Congress has the power to enforce the amendment … or not (there’s that devilish definition deceit again). If Congress defunded whatever program in whatever agency calculates budgets, GDP or the difference between the two, then no control exists.
Even the 18% spending-to-GDP ratio may be a problem. Though the rate could and perhaps should be much lower, setting a limit in stone creates inflexibility, which given the dynamics of the globe might not be wise. Yes, we would surely do better by investing our own money instead of Uncle Sugar spending it like he was on permanent shore leave. Yet as new threats grow and our military/intelligence services need to stay ahead, fights over budget balancing that pit federal freeloaders against our collective security interest could lead to catastrophe.
All my griping aside, there is hope. Within the proposed amendment is a clause that allows any member of Congress to sue the government and have the amendment enforced if (s)he can get 1/3rd of their fellow Congress Cretins to agree. Assuming that the Supreme Court upholds the letter and intent of the amendment (though they have a lousy track record on this subject), then even a minority of malcontents could enforce fiscal sanity.
Let us have optimism. Flawed and pretentious as the proposed amendment is, and as unnecessary as it should be, it is better than perpetual theft and mismanagement.
Comments