Exercise in Futility

Reader comment on: Rubio on a Balanced Budget Amendment

Submitted by Andrew Terhune (United States), Dec 14, 2011 17:09

The idea of constitutionally limiting government expenditures to a percentage of GDP flies in the face of what constitutions are supposed to be. A constitution lays out the framework that the legislatures fill in with laws. It would be an endless source of litigation. How does one measure GDP?

Far simpler would be an amendment requiring that for Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States, it would require a super majority of each house, say 3/5 or 2/3, and limit the authorization for new debt to one year so that no Congress could, even with a super majority, write a blank check to the next Congress but would have to go on record. This wouldn't guarantee that there would be balanced budgets, but it would ensure that there was more than a simple majority binding future generations to pay it back, and it would be self enforcing.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Other reader comments on this item

Comment on this item