I wouldn't make a big issue of the balanced budget amendment if I were the Democrats

in Congress. I know it's a stupid gimmick but it needs to be ratified by 3/4 of the states in order for it to be in the constitution. It's highly unlikely this would ever happen. I wouldn't use this to prevent any deal.

the BBA is enacted.

Signed by the prez and sent to the states for ratification?

Or ratified?

The first is "enacted." It doesn't mean diddly until it's been ratified. The OP's saying "enact the damned thing, it'll languish and never be ratified."

It's a sop. Throw it to them. If it hits them in the face, oh, well.

It will kill social programs.

After the initial $900b ceiling increase they are proposing, their bill precludes any more ceiling increases until the amendment is passed by the required two thirds of states.

Thats a non starter even if you want to ignore the amendment.

"Members say the bill is being changed to tie a second debt ceiling increase roughly six months from now to successfully sending a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states, which would require a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20085491-503544.html

In other words, pass a baby debt ceiling increase (with cuts) and then have a second such bill in winter. Between now and then, have the House and Senate produce a balanced budget amendment for Obama's signature and sent it to the states.

The House acting now can't bind the House's actions later.

50%+1 to pass?

Do you hold a vote, see that you have 55% and say, "debt ceiling passes, amendment fails"?

But if they wanted the Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment in order to make the debt ceiling issue go away I wouldn't see it as a problem. I doubt 3/4 of the states would ratify it.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Reid Open to Voting on Balanced Budget Amendment

By Steven T. Dennis
Roll Call Staff
July 29, 2011, 2:05 p.m.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would be open to allowing a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and other compromises if Republicans are willing to cut a deal taking a debt default off of the table through 2012.

“If people want a vote on that, fine,” Reid said of the balanced budget amendment Friday.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/reid_open_to_voting_on_balanced_budget_amendment-207832-1.html?pos=hatxt

to it passing are much different things.

What next: threatening a government shutdown unless Congress passes an amendment banning same sex marriage?

other than what it says.

be raised to pay for it.

Raise taxes to bring it to balance....Clinton did it.

There was a bill that raised taxes and cut spending. That didn't balance the budget.

Later there was a nice cap on spending. It reduced the rate of growth of spending to below the rate of growth of the revenue stream. In effect, Congress and the President fought the urge to increase spending reasonably well until the budget was in balance.

That required a few things: Military spending was cut significantly. They reduced entitlements--welfare was cut, and a good economy meant that fewer benefits had to be paid, reducing that portion of the federal budget and making it easy for them to limit spending increases.

Life's complex and in 3D. It takes a lot of violence and simplification to reduce it to a _________________, much less a .

Virtually every state has a balanced budget requirement of some kind -- including some very blue states, so that builds pressure to pass an amendment to the Constitution. Plus the repubs control enough state legilatures to get them nearly 70 percent of the way to the goal line on day one.

(R) aren't monolithic, to be sure.

Every state has a balanced budget provision, but nearly every state knows that it's been bailed out of the hardship it would cause by a "profligate" federal government. I'm not sure that makes for pressure in favor of or against a federal balanced budget amendment.

I also have to wonder why the state's have a balanced budget provision.

In any event, I haven't seen any proposed text. Amendments can be more than a couple sentences long, and the Senate would surely have a go at providing wriggle room for the conditions that they believe really calls for an budget out of balance.

just about every state is in debt. How effective are BBA's? I don't know alot about them. But the fact that states with BBAs, still run deficits, makes me think they are nothing more than 'token' legislation.