4 ms·

>> If Congress had to agree on a source of funding for every deficit-running budget they passed, the budgets (or continuing resolutions, in the case that they c

>> If Congress had to agree on a source of funding for every deficit-running budget they passed, the budgets (or continuing resolutions, in the case that they can't pass full budgets) wouldn't pass. It doesn't really make sense to commit to spending without knowing where the money will come from. If they had to argue about the source of funding when they passed appropriations, then we wouldn't have to go through the same drama later.

harshreality 13y ago
They know where the money is coming from: issuing more debt. If they had to acknowledge that more directly when debating the budget (aka continuing resolutions), I don't think budgets would sail through as often as they do, but it would also make it easier for the government to spend more. The ritual of raising the debt ceiling is a more concrete step to make them feel bad about blowing through the last debt increase so fast. What's wrong with that as a psychological tool, and as a separate opportunity for the public to influence their representatives and voice their opinions? You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a percentage of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult.
- alphakappa 13y ago
  I fail to understand why a dysfunctional system is better than one where expense proposals are matched by revenue/borrowing plans. This is the government of the United States we are talking about, not some teenager's budget where we have to come up with ways to make them 'feel bad' about spending. >> You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a percentage of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult. No, I want to make sure that those who pass spending bills are also responsible for finding the revenue. It does not preclude the possibility of keeping debt in control - if they feel that debt/gdp ratio should be in check, then they should keep their spending proposals in check too. One cannot approve large spending, and then complain when the payment is due.

harshreality 13y ago

They know where the money is coming from: issuing more debt. If they had to acknowledge that more directly when debating the budget (aka continuing resolutions), I don't think budgets would sail through as often as they do, but it would also make it easier for the government to spend more. The ritual of raising the debt ceiling is a more concrete step to make them feel bad about blowing through the last debt increase so fast. What's wrong with that as a psychological tool, and as a separate opportunity for the public to influence their representatives and voice their opinions? You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a percentage of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult.

alphakappa 13y ago
I fail to understand why a dysfunctional system is better than one where expense proposals are matched by revenue/borrowing plans. This is the government of the United States we are talking about, not some teenager's budget where we have to come up with ways to make them 'feel bad' about spending. >> You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a percentage of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult. No, I want to make sure that those who pass spending bills are also responsible for finding the revenue. It does not preclude the possibility of keeping debt in control - if they feel that debt/gdp ratio should be in check, then they should keep their spending proposals in check too. One cannot approve large spending, and then complain when the payment is due.