Assessing the Constitutional Route to Federal Budget Balance, The Balanced Budget Amendment: Toxic, Not Tonic

Charles J. Whalen

Economics Public Policy Brief Archive from Levy Economics Institute

Abstract: Whalen evaluates the political and economic arguments in favor of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. He concludes that although today's federal budget process needs reform, the balanced budget amendment is not a solution. In fact, such an amendment would divert attention from what is really needed, namely, establishing priorities and making difficult decisions concerning the deficit. It would be damaging to both the economic and the political systems of the United States. He recommends budget alternatives--a full-employment budget, an investment budget, a narrowly defined federal capital budget, a biennial budget--that would give the budgeting process more direction and encourage more restraint than the amendment would.

References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb20.pdf (application/pdf)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 404 Not Found (http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb20.pdf [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://levyweb.bard.edu/pubs/ppb20.pdf)

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:lev:levppb:ppb_20

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Economics Public Policy Brief Archive from Levy Economics Institute
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Elizabeth Dunn ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).