One of the big problems with the budget process for the US Government is that it encourages expansion of government to get agreements on a budget. It is easier to have everyone agree to spend more taxpayer money than to make hard decisions to cut government spending to benefit all taxpayers. The essential problem is that it is just as easy - or even easier - to hold out on reaching an agreement to get more spending rather than less.
Proposals that have been put forward such as a balanced budget amendment do not sufficiently focus on reducing government spending or can be bypassed with government accounting procedures designed to understate deficit spending. A balanced budget requirement would be more likely to result in tax increases than spending cuts given the current political climate even if it could be passed.
There is a need to focus on creating pressure to reduce spending. There have to be procedural changes implemented in the Constitution to make it more difficult to spend large sums of taxpayer money while also allowing necessary functions of government to be funded.
The essential thing that needs to be done is to change the process in order to make comprehensive budget deals difficult or impossible to implement and institutionally force Congress and the President to focus on funding only the most important government functions that have relatively broad agreement.
One approach that could apply downward pressure to government spending would have the following provisions:
Proposals that have been put forward such as a balanced budget amendment do not sufficiently focus on reducing government spending or can be bypassed with government accounting procedures designed to understate deficit spending. A balanced budget requirement would be more likely to result in tax increases than spending cuts given the current political climate even if it could be passed.
There is a need to focus on creating pressure to reduce spending. There have to be procedural changes implemented in the Constitution to make it more difficult to spend large sums of taxpayer money while also allowing necessary functions of government to be funded.
The essential thing that needs to be done is to change the process in order to make comprehensive budget deals difficult or impossible to implement and institutionally force Congress and the President to focus on funding only the most important government functions that have relatively broad agreement.
One approach that could apply downward pressure to government spending would have the following provisions:
- Appropriations could only be made in bundles of 10% of the total prior year spending with no appropriation bills allowed to be introduced into Congress exceeding this aggregate amount until the entire 10% bundle was fully appropriated through bills being passed into laws.
- Approprations for a new 10% bundle would not be allowed until Congress passed an authorization by 3/5 vote of both houses that permitted the next 10% of the budget to be appropriated.
This would force agreements on the most essential government spending early in the process which should allow the appropriations for the functions of government for which there is common agreement. Agencies could get partial funding early in the process to make sure critical functions are performed even if many functions are not fully funded immediately (or ever).
This would prevent comprehensive budget agreements beyond 10% of the total prior year spending. Each step of authorizing the next 10% of spending would require an explicit vote on the total amount of government spending and require a 3/5 super majority rather than a simple majority. This should provide better protection against excessive government spending by sequencing decisions to allow spending levels for which there is common agreement. It would help prevent big spenders from holding out for large appropriations that increase the overall budget in order to get budget agreements.
Having a sequential appropriations process that is constitutionally imposed will change the spending process and constrain big spenders in a way the current process cannot.
Getting Congress to propose an amendment like this would be almost impossible. Most members of Congress would not like their spending power constrained, and all Democrats would object because it is an institutional barrier to the big government they want. That means the only way to pass an amendment like this is having a convention of states to propose this amendment and then allow the state legislatures to pass it. Getting it through Democrat controlled state legislatures would be a challenge, but it could be done if enough people in the country are disgusted with the Federal Government budget process.
It is worth a try. The alternative is continuing, without putting up a fight, to swirl down toward the drain of economic collapse, anarchy, and poverty that our current spending levels are pushing us toward.
Comments