Why the Balanced Budget Amendment is No Good

The latest Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) proposal is not only an unworkable fiscal monstrosity but also the most fundamental change to our system of government ever proposed since the adoption of the Constitution. It would make the American system more like a European parliament and take away the power of the Presidential veto.

Entitlements currently consume a double-digit percentage of the GDP and are going to grow fast as the baby boomers start collecting them, so the federal budget in the coming decades is going to be neither balanced nor under 18% of the GDP. We also know that cuts to current benefits are not going to happen. Not only Democrats but even conservatives such as Marco Rubio (R – The World’s Biggest Retirement Community) will do everything necessary to prevent that from happening.

So what is actually going to happen? The proposed text says that both restrictions can be disregarded if two-thirds in each chamber vote to override the restrictions.

In other words, for all practical purposed the BBA does not mean a balanced budget but merely means that the budget will have to be passed with two-thirds majorities rather than simple majorities (the same will be true for tax increases).

One unintended consequence of such budget procedure might be a massive increase in government spending, since congressional leadership will have to bribe a lot more members (both in the majority and minority) with pork barrel spending in their districts. Another unintended consequence is much more worrisome. If all budgets require two thirds majorities, the presidential veto is irrelevant. Members of Congress will have to negotiate only among themselves, but not with the executive branch. The legislative branch will have much more control over cabinet departments than now.

For example, Congress will be able to shove any weapons program down the Pentagon’s throat regardless of whether the military wants them or not (much of pork barrel spending will probably be disguised as defense spending). The balance between the branches of government will shift greatly. We will move much closer to the European parliamentary system. If the Republicans are actually serious about this proposal, then instead of holding a vote in Congress and passing the amendment to state legislatures they should go down the other path for changing the Constitution and call for a new Constitutional Convention.

The magnitude of change demands nothing less.

Tweet