The Constitutional Amendment That Would Rein in Spending

The Daily Signal ^ | February 7, 2018 | Walter E. Williams

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Some people have called for a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution as a means of reining in a big-spending Congress.

That’s a misguided vision, for the simple reason that in any real economic sense, as opposed to an accounting sense, the federal budget is always balanced.

The value of what we produced in 2017—our gross domestic product—totaled about $19 trillion. If the Congress spent $4 trillion of the $19 trillion that we produced, unless you believe in Santa Claus, you know that Congress must force us to spend $4 trillion less privately.

Taxing us is one way that Congress can do that. But federal revenue estimates for 2017 are about $3.5 trillion, leaving an accounting deficit of about $500 billion. So taxes are not enough to cover Congress’ spending.

Another way Congress can get us to spend less privately is to enter the bond market. It can borrow. Borrowing forces us to spend less privately, and it drives up interest rates and crowds out private investment.

Finally, the most dishonest way to get us to spend less is to inflate our currency. Higher prices for goods and services reduce our real spending.

The bottom line is the federal budget is always balanced in any real economic sense.

For those enamored of a balanced budget amendment, think about the following. Would we have greater personal liberty under a balanced federal budget with Congress spending $4 trillion and taxing us $4 trillion, or would we be freer under an unbalanced federal budget with Congress spending $2 trillion and taxing us $1 trillion?

I’d prefer the unbalanced budget. The true measure of government’s impact on our lives is government spending, not government taxing.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"WHY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STILL OWN SO MUCH LAND TODAY"

[Chad N. Freud]

"Some say, now, that he was a spoiler to make sure that Clinton won. Who knows."

I'd say 'a LOT' say, now, that he was a spoiler. But that could be Monday=moring quarterbacking, too.

I agree with the "who knows." I give it 50/50. That's how pernicious the Clintons are: there are uncharted depths to their machinations. Everything they have a hand in is to be viewed with a grain of salt. And yet there is infinite variety in the universe, even in the political universe. Perot may have been on the level. Outgunned and outmaneuvered, but on the level. Yet, still, it worked out far too conveniently for Clinton that he split the vote.