Reagan's fiscal policy would have been unconstitutional under amendment proposed by Senate GOP

Pres. Reagan would have violated the proposed amendment by spending
too much and raising taxes without a supermajority (Photo: USAF)

Ezra Klein with an amazing illustration of just how extreme the Senate GOP's proposed balanced budget amendment really is:

This isn?t just a Balanced Budget Amendment. It also includes a provision saying that tax increases would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress ? so, it includes a provision making it harder to balance the budget ? and another saying that total spending couldn?t exceed 18 percent of GDP. No allowances are made for recessions, though allowances are made for wars. Not a single year of the Bush administration would qualify as constitutional under this amendment. Nor would a single year of the Reagan administration. The Clinton administration would?ve had exactly two years in which it wasn?t in violation.

Read that again: Every single Senate Republican has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would?ve made Ronald Reagan?s fiscal policy unconstitutional. That?s how far to the right the modern GOP has swung.

It's crazy enough to bar spending more than 18% of GDP?basically, the only way to hit that target would be to radically cut Social Security and Medicare every single time there is a recession, and there's no way that would make any economic sense whatsoever. But requiring a two-thirds majority for tax increases? That's pure madness, especially given that there's already a filibuster in the Senate. The only thing it would do would be to make this country even more ungovernable than it already is. Although I suppose that might be the point.

Source: http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/tRKCSit5lug/-Reagans-fiscal-policy-would-have-been-unconstitutional-under-amendment-proposed-by-Senate-GOP

daily news newspaper bbc news politics health news articles politics today