I think the BBA is a mistake. I’ve peppered comments here and there about it because I see serious possible unintended consequences that will mean the complete end to any Federalism we have left. And that is just the point, we have a spending and debt problem because all the walls limiting government have been trampled down. And we have big government, and central economic planning, and all the ills that come with that because the walls have been trampled down. The only answer to this is to strip government of its power or it will find other ways to accomplish all the things it has been doing, and we will end up paying one way or the other.

I do not understand how anyone with any regard to the intended meaning of the constitution could support the BBA.The real problem is that nothing we have, not our money, nor liberty, nor anything that was once considered a self-evident truth about man and his rights is sacred and deserving of protection as a first priority. Instead we are just looked at as piggy banks and tools for wielding of political power and achivement of self-reward. While you all are at it, why not just repeal the10th amendment? That is what you are aknowleding has actually happened by putting in a BBA instead of solving the real problem.

There are four common ways for government to support all the things it does and enforce its will: direct taxation, debt, inflation, and unfunded mandates. The BBA addresses only two of those, and I suppose that it has some kind of “emergency” provision inclusive of war and other calamities.

The housing/financial crisis has exposed yet another way for government to manage policy and effect a desired end – jacking the financial system. It gave away houses to people who could not afford them, and barring the crash, very little tax money was used. None of these things carrying an implicit guarantee were ever on the books so the BBA would have done nothing to prevent any of this. It would also not prevent bailouts and fantastic stimulus packages, omnibus spending, and whatever else because of the emergency provision. If we take into account Federal spending prior to the bailouts, it was near the proposed cap. And it seems like the expection of the whole cut, cap, balance is that that level of spending and that size of government is acceptable as if there wasn’t any evil lurking under the surface of the economy during the 2000 decade. I’m sorry but this mess didn’t happen over night, and it didn’t happen just because Democrats got control of everything.

It’s really nice that I don’t have to make stuff up to prove my point, because if I had not lived through the last three years, I wouldn’t have been able to make that kind of thing up. And that’s the real scary part of the proposed solution (that really is no solution at all), because it invites more things being done without being on the books, and pulling all levers of power for government to get what it wants without anyone knowing until its just too damn late.

And I didn’t even get around to the other avenue of support: inflation.

- Has a 3/5 override on the debt limit, spending cap, and tax increses without condition.
- Does not require a budget to be passed.
- Nice big hole in Section 5. I’ll let you figure it out

Everything I pointed out in my comment is germane. And I want to know what’s going to be done about unfunded mandates, the propensity to inflate, and market distorions by which it gets what it wants without paying for it, while making everyone else pay dearly. Sometimes it really seems like we haven’t learned any lesson at all from the financial crisis and hammering of the health care and other markets which the government will have no problem doing with its regulatory/bureaucratic power left unabridged.