I think the U.S.
Constitution is an amazing, well-crafted document that has been instrumental in
the rise and continued success of the American culture and economy. The
founders did a good job of anticipating future needs and building in
flexibility for a growing and technologically evolving nation. But the country
has some big problems today; problems that could have been addressed
originally, or could be corrected today through the amendment process.
Unlike some
left-wing university professors, I would not throw out our constitution, but
starting from our existing document, here’s what I’d add:
#1 Federal Term Limits
No person shall be elected to the same federal office for more
than four terms or 12 years (whichever is less).
The entrenched
political culture of Washington D.C. will never be fixed by career politicians
who are in safe districts. There is something to be said about citizen
politicians – those who work for a living and periodically travel to Washington
to handle the nation’s business.
While congress
established presidential term limits early last century, they will never put
limits on themselves and the president has no power to implement them for congress.
The only means of setting up and enforcing term limits is through the constitution
itself.
I would propose
term limits of no more than 12 years or 4 terms – whichever is lower – in a
single role in the legislative or executive branches. This would allow two
terms in the Senate, four terms in the House of Representatives, or three terms
as president.
#2 Balanced Budgets and Revenue-Limited Spending
The legislative and executive branches must pass a two-year
budget in odd-numbered years where total outlays for any fiscal year shall not
exceed total receipts for the prior fiscal year.
A key role of politicians is to manage the nation’s operations and
finances. As such, the Constitution should require the president and congress
to pass a two-year budget, voted on and implemented in off-election years. If a
budget is not passed, the prior budget will be extended automatically with no
inflation or cost of living increases.
In order to balance the federal budget, the federal government
must limit its spending to revenue earned in prior years. The job of congress
and the president is to allocate available dollars, but how much can
be spent is constitutionally determined. As such, the
federal government must not run budget deficits for more than two consecutive
years. The consequence for violating this rule is that the next year’s budget
will be automatically reduced by 10% across the board – all programs and all
expenditures.
In addition, the federal government must abide by current
financial accounting standards (as established by congress and federal
agencies) as though it were any private company. Spending cannot take place off
the books and all future liabilities must be accounted for on an annual report
to taxpayers. The government will also be subjected to an audit by an
independent, private accounting firm every five years.
#3 Pay for Performance
If a budget is not lawfully passed ahead of any fiscal
year, all federally elected representatives will suffer an immediate 50% pay
cut until a budget is passed. Representatives will be awarded a 15% annual
bonus when U.S. GDP exceeds 4%, or assessed a 10% pay cut when GDP falls below
2%.
Members of congress tend to believe their job is to write laws and
spend more taxpayer dollars. They measure their own job performance by how many
bills they pass or how many dollars they bring home to their states and
districts. A politician’s incentives revolve around re-election, not the
financial stability and security of the nation. A new pay-for-performance plan
will be established with pay that will be based on two key metrics:
fiscal responsibility and GDP growth.
Specifically, when congress fails to pass a budget in the years
they are required – this includes obtaining approval from the sitting president
– an immediate 50% pay cut will be instituted for all elected representatives
and will remain in force until the budget is passed. Next, when annual GDP
growth falls below 2%, a 10% pay cut will be enforced with additional cuts each
year GDP does not rise above 2%. When GDP growth exceeds 4%, each elected
representative will be awarded a 15% bonus.
While congress and the president may not be able to control the
U.S. economy, they are incentivized to implement policies that maximize
economic growth and control federal spending through the budget process.
***
This concludes my exercise in
futility.

Although I agree in principle with the balanced budget amendment, I believe it impractical.
ReplyDeleteI believe an escape clause is necessary (in times of war or extreme financial circumstances), but I'm not confident enough that an escape clause wouldn't be abused.
Hi Chris. I considered a buffer of some 20%, but I agree that it would be abused. In the end, I think government has to live within its means, just like you and me.
ReplyDeleteIf we're going to war and war costs go up suddenly, we should have to sacrifice in other areas to pay for the war. If my household costs spike suddenly in one area, I have to pull money from other areas to cover it. Heaven forbid the government save for a rainy day.
We pay our politicians to make difficult choices. If going to war is so important, let them decide if it's more important than extended unemployment benefits, funding PBS, or hiring more IRS employees.
An exercise in futility indeed! Nonetheless, all three are excellent suggestions. Perhaps you should run for congress in your district, H.R.
ReplyDeleteDoes your support for a balanced budget mean you are reversing your position that deficits don't matter? An across-the-board 10% sequester for just two deficit budgets seems like an especially harsh penalty for something you've said you believe is costless.
ReplyDeleteI think you're referring to my posts arguing that government handouts don't, in fact, cost anything and that conservatives need to be reality-based in their thinking. Forgive me for getting into the weeds, but there is some nuance that I need to flesh out.
ReplyDeleteI think our national debt matters. A lot. Unfortunately, as I documented at the end of December, there have been no real consequences to high national debt. Perhaps there will be some future consequences, but I don't see any consequences now and haven't seen any the last couple of decades.
I'm not so sure that deficits matter except that they contribute to debt. I don't think short-term debt is a big deal for the country or in my personal life, provided it is short-term debt and not a continual crutch. This is my practical argument, so let me offer my ethical/moral argument.
It is only moral for the federal government to spend taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently. The government has an obligation to us, the taxpayers, to not spend more than it brings in. That's why I would support a balanced budget amendment and would limit spending to revenue earned.
Excellent list. I am very much in favor of term limits. The aristocrats need to be turned back into regular citizens after a few years.
ReplyDeleteBut would you modify it so a politician can come back after staying out 4+ years?