America's independent, non-partisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers.

 

Blog Contributors

Brandon Arnold
Vice President of Government Affairs 

Dan Barrett
Research and Outreach Manager 

Demian Brady
Director of Research 

Christina DiSomma
Communications Intern 

Timothy Howland
Creative Content Manager 

Curtis Kalin
Communications Intern 

Ross Kaminsky
Blog Contributor 

David Keating
Blog Contributor 

Douglas Kellogg
Communications Manager 

Sharon Koss
Government Affairs Intern 

Richard Lipman
Director of Development 

Joe Michalowski
Government Affairs Intern 

Diana Oprinescu
Communications Intern 

Austin Peters
Communications Intern 

Kristina Rasmussen
Blog Contributor 

Lee Schalk
State Government Affairs Manager 

Pete Sepp
Executive Vice President  

Nan Swift
Federal Government Affairs Manager 

Columnist Steve Chapman's Anti-BBA Arguments are the Real Delusion


Pete Sepp
December 12, 2011

In his syndicated column, Steve Chapman attempts to torpedo support for a Balanced Budget Amendment in a purely negative piece, “The Balanced Budget Amendment Delusion”, absent of any positive suggestions for remedying America's fiscal crisis. Fortunately for those looking for solutions, the real “delusions” in Steve Chapman’s article are the author’s own arguments against such a proposal.

He rightly critiques repeated failures of our leaders to “get serious about the deficit even when they face a stark obligation,” yet he believes a constitutional balanced-budget rule would fare no better. If so, why have a Constitution and Bill of Rights at all? An amendment would focus policymakers (not “distract” them as Chapman contends) on more responsible budgeting – and, in the words of former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin, “give Congress a way to say no” to special interests.

Chapman then raises several stale and contradictory objections about an amendment, such as it being easily evadable by crafty politicians. If so, why haven’t those same politicians lined up to pass the amendment and claim credit for a gimmick they know they can undermine? Because they know that the amendment, while not perfect, will put a check on their fiscal excesses and hold them more directly accountable to the electorate when they engage in chicanery.

Thomas Jefferson wrote about the need for “an additional article” to the Constitution “taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.” Here’s hoping Chapman doesn’t consider one of our Constitution’s architects “delusional” too – and that Chapman will pay a visit to the National Taxpayers Union again sometime soon. He could get a worthwhile refresher course on why the tax-spend-and-borrow crowds in both parties have feared this amendment for so long.


 

Comment on this blog

Nickname
Comment
Enter this word:

User Comments

Submitted by funu50401 at: December 12, 2011
Actually, it's not the debt, it's the power of Congress to pledge the full faith and credit of the United States to to the payment of its debts. This would work, put a permanent limit on the length of time within the debts could be paid, say an intital 30 years and then shorten it one year for the next ten years which would make he final restraint 20 years. Thus, no debts of one generation passed on to the next to pay.