The Balanced Budget Amendment: Clarifying the Arguments

James Buchanan

Public Choice, 1997, vol. 90, issue 1-4, 117-38

Abstract: From the perspective of a supporter, this paper responds to the several criticisms that have been raised to the proposed constitutional amendment to require budget balance. Economists have concentrated on the loss of fiscal flexibility. This objection is countered by reference to the political inefficacy of attempted budgetary manipulation. Lawyers have concentrated on problems of enforcement. This objection is countered by reference to observed respect to other constitutional rules. Copyright 1997 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Date: 1997
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (16)

Downloads: (external link)
http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0048-5829/contents link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:90:y:1997:i:1-4:p:117-38

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... ce/journal/11127/PS2

Access Statistics for this article

Public Choice is currently edited by WIlliam F. Shughart II

More articles in Public Choice from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().