The idea of annually balancing the budget was long ago discredited by serious examination and by experience. Why annual? Why not monthly, or biennial, or across a business cycle? Efforts to keep government budgets balanced during cyclical declines in business activity proved futile during the Great Depression, notably in the United States under Hoover and in Germany under Bruening, where they hastened the end of the Weimar Republic. By raising taxes and cutting government expenditures, political leaders pushed their economies down further and faster.
I believe the author is against the increase in the deficit, esp. during the Reagan reign. You balance the budget across the creditor's expectations, it's just that forcing politicians to make...
I believe the author is against the increase in the deficit, esp. during the Reagan reign.
Why annual? Why not monthly, or biennial, or across a business cycle?
You balance the budget across the creditor's expectations, it's just that forcing politicians to make those types of long-term plans is impossible given the 4-year terms we use, so annual budget balances could be viewed as an effort to make unpaid dues more transparent.
Anyways, I need to read more economics, I was not aware of the "crowding out" issue.
The shortest terms are for Representatives at 2 years. Senators are up for election every 6. Only the Presidency is every 4. 6 years is usually within some phase of a business cycle. And the...
You balance the budget across the creditor's expectations, it's just that forcing politicians to make those types of long-term plans is impossible given the 4-year terms we use
The shortest terms are for Representatives at 2 years. Senators are up for election every 6. Only the Presidency is every 4. 6 years is usually within some phase of a business cycle. And the Congressional term of 2 years is at least enough to argue for biennial, rather than annual, rebalancing.
I get how our re-election cycles work, and I agree that a biennial cycle might make sense, though I wonder if it being out of sync with everything else might cause paperwork issues.
I get how our re-election cycles work, and I agree that a biennial cycle might make sense, though I wonder if it being out of sync with everything else might cause paperwork issues.
I believe the author is against the increase in the deficit, esp. during the Reagan reign.
You balance the budget across the creditor's expectations, it's just that forcing politicians to make those types of long-term plans is impossible given the 4-year terms we use, so annual budget balances could be viewed as an effort to make unpaid dues more transparent.
Anyways, I need to read more economics, I was not aware of the "crowding out" issue.
The shortest terms are for Representatives at 2 years. Senators are up for election every 6. Only the Presidency is every 4. 6 years is usually within some phase of a business cycle. And the Congressional term of 2 years is at least enough to argue for biennial, rather than annual, rebalancing.
I get how our re-election cycles work, and I agree that a biennial cycle might make sense, though I wonder if it being out of sync with everything else might cause paperwork issues.