Bringing Back Gramm-Rudman

The journalist Jonathan Rauch recently published a commentary, suggesting that Congress enact legislation similar to Gramm-Rudman, the 80s-era law that sought to decrease deficit spending by "set[ting] declining annual deficit targets and impos[ing] primitive across-the-board cuts ('sequestration'), as needed, to reach the goals." While Gramm-Rudman was regarded as a crude tactic, Rauch argues that such (seemingly) brutal methods are what we need today to curb the ever-increasing explosions of federal spending...occurring under the watch of a Republican Administration and Republican-controlled Congress. To my friends who align themselves with the GOP, I suggest that you (a) hold your politicians accountable, (b) ditch the Republicans and join the Libertarian Party, or (c) not vote!

This got me to thinking about the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA), an idea which occassionally enters the political scene, only to retreat for a variety of reasons. Should we—out of principle, for it would never pass—try to enact it again? Is it not the only realistic way to rein in deficit spending? Some fiscal conservatives fear that measures like a BBA would guarantee increased taxes, since Members of Congress would fight to protect projects that benefitted their constituents, thus ensuring a steady rate of spending and subsequent, legally-required, tax increases. However, perhaps a brave soul in Congress could push for a "BBA-plus" that would freeze (or lower) tax rates while forcing the feds to balance the books.

I suppose that this will be make me sound like a crank, but demanding a fiscally responsible government should be considered a sensible, rather than radical, idea.