This is why a Balanced Budget Amendment needs to be attached to raising the debt-limit.

1) it is simple enough for ordinary folks to accept. Afterall, who doesn't have to balance "Their Budget" or face bankruptcy outside of the politicians in DC? It's common sense that you can't spend more than you take in, it's like the conservation of matter, what goes out can not be greter than what comes in!

2) a Balanced Budget Amendment could NOT be undone by a future congress WITHOUT the consent of the states. An Amendment to repeal would be needed. This would return a certain power to the States over the Federal budget! It would put DC politicians on a leash!

YOU ARE A VERY INTELLIGENT MAN AND I LOVE TO WATCH BRET BEIR SHOW. WE WATCH FOX OF COURSE. YOU CAN WEAR A TURTLE NECK ANYTIME TIES CHOKE. HAVE A GREAT DAY

MARQI AND BILL

Once again: why MUST the debt ceiling be raised? Cut spending, pay debts to remain below the ceiling.

I'm not even in favor of a balanced budget amendment UNLESS accompanied by a Tax Limit amendment. All you have to do (in the exploiter class/leftist mind) is raise taxes as much as you want until the budget is "balanced."

The debt ceiling is, in effect, a balanced budget amendment PLUS. It requires paying interest on debts to remain below the limit AND spending what is left to pay for essential and constitutional federal services (of which there are few). The only danger in not raising the ceiling is that the exploiter class would determine it as a reason to raise taxes so that spending can continue at the current unsustainable rate!

Great article—I will link to it from my Old Jarhead blog. Unfortunately, most voters are profoundly ignorant of basic economics, so can be manipulated on issues like this. A large percentage of voters can be bought by government spending, and both parties have bid for those votes, borrowing against the future. But the future is almost here, which is why I fear we are headed for a collapse. I don’t think the US will default. I think that faced with that, the temptation to just print fiat money will be over-whelming, and they will print money to pay the debt, creating hyper-inflation, making our savings for retirement worthless.

Robert A. Hall

Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic

(All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)

If "there is no drop dead date" then why does it have to happen? If spending is reduced to revenues and borrowing takes a hiatus then raising the ceiling is simply political football.

I suppose it "must" be raised with Obama in the Oval Office--since there's no way he'll sign onto massive reductions (even though he ran on doing just that).

And do you really think the electorate cares about political "blackmail" against a president who is fundamentally transforming...ERRR...destroying the country as we know it?

No Constitutional amendment on balanced budgets without an amendment to tax limits. Period. Balanced budget believers are simply fastening the chains of servitude tighter on their wrists by wishing for such a thing without tax reform.

There just isn't a good reason to raise the debt ceiling. It's like telling a burglar that we'll allow him to burgle two more houses this year without getting caught.

I've always wondered...if you can raise the debt limit anytime you want, then it's not really a limit of any kind, is it?

It is called ranking priorities within a budget, nothing new, businesses do it every minute of every day, so do households, the only group that has problems with it are Governments because its not their money they are spending it is yours - and they will always spend it and more, so you vote for them and keep them in power.

In the final analysis it is up to you the voter to call a halt.

The other side of the equation is to change policies so that revenue collection and expenditure are more efficient.

With the way the system works expenditure control is difficult, not impossible, but difficult as there are so many lobby groups in society all yelling for more like cuckoo chicks in a stranger's nest.

On the revenue side for the USA it is easy - introduce a GST or VAT tax with no exemptions as soon as you can and make the % such that you can do away with a host of ancillary taxes at the same time e.g. sales taxes.

It is the easiest way to collect taxes as every single transaction carries a charge, it is the most efficient way to collect as the end seller does most of the paperwork, and it is the fairest as everyone rich, poor, criminal, contributes every single time they buy anything.

In one change of policy you raise more revenue, reduce collection costs, make life easier for businesses (as long as you have NO exceptions) and householders and thwart the usual cacophony of interest groups.

If you also establish a formula for distribution of the tax collected between Federal & State Governments you can solve time consuming problems there too.

In Australia we gave all of it to the States without controlling what they spent it on which was a mistake, however that can easily be finessed.

In your current situation it is the the very first thing you should do, still means priortisation of spending but at least on the collection side of the equation your collection would be universal and the most efficient you could make it so you would have half of the problem solved and then could concentrate on finessing income tax levels and priortising expenditures.

In the interim I agree with Charles the easiest way to communicate on a complex problem (complex because of human beings, not because of mathematics) is to offer a dollar for dollar trade.

It is called ranking priorities within a budget, nothing new, businesses do it every minute of every day, so do households, the only group that has problems with it are Governments because its not their money they are spending it is yours - and they will always spend it and more, so you vote for them and keep them in power.

In the final analysis it is up to you the voter to call a halt.

The other side of the equation is to change policies so that revenue collection and expenditure are more efficient.

With the way the system works expenditure control is difficult, not impossible, but difficult as there are so many lobby groups in society all yelling for more like cuckoo chicks in a stranger's nest.

On the revenue side for the USA it is easy - introduce a GST or VAT tax with no exemptions as soon as you can and make the % such that you can do away with a host of ancillary taxes at the same time e.g. sales taxes.

It is the easiest way to collect taxes as every single transaction carries a charge, it is the most efficient way to collect as the end seller does most of the paperwork, and it is the fairest as everyone rich, poor, criminal, contributes every single time they buy anything.

In one change of policy you raise more revenue, reduce collection costs, make life easier for businesses (as long as you have NO exceptions) and householders and thwart the usual cacophony of interest groups.

If you also establish a formula for distribution of the tax collected between Federal & State Governments you can solve time consuming problems there too.

In Australia we gave all of it to the States without controlling what they spent it on which was a mistake, however that can easily be finessed.

In your current situation it is the the very first thing you should do, still means priortisation of spending but at least on the collection side of the equation your collection would be universal and the most efficient you could make it so you would have half of the problem solved and then could concentrate on finessing income tax levels and priortising expenditures.

In the interim I agree with Charles the easiest way to communicate on a complex problem (complex because of human beings, not because of mathematics) is to offer a dollar for dollar trade.

Charles, I’m concerned that you seem comfortable in downplaying our debt crisis.

“There is no drop-dead date. There is no overnight default. Debt service amounts to about 6 percent of the federal budget and only about 10 percent of federal revenues.”

Last time I checked the interest on the debt is running well over 400 billion a year; creeping closer to the half trillion dollar mark each year. 400-500 billion is 6 percent of the federal budget? Nearly half a trillion dollars in interest payments on our debt every year does not rise to the level of crisis?

Charles, I’m concerned that you seem comfortable in downplaying our debt crisis.

“There is no drop-dead date. There is no overnight default. Debt service amounts to about 6 percent of the federal budget and only about 10 percent of federal revenues.”

Last time I checked the interest on the debt is running well over 400 billion a year; creeping closer to the half trillion dollar mark each year. 400-500 billion is 6 percent of the federal budget? Nearly half a trillion dollars in interest payments on our debt every year does not rise to the level of crisis?

"Debt service amounts to about 6 percent of the federal budget and only about 10 percent of federal revenues.”

Let's rephrase that just a bit: "Debt service amounts to about 6 percent of the federal budget that is written with a $1,600,000,000,000 DEFICIT! Debt service (interest) does not mean that we are paying a single cent toward paying down the $14,300,000,000,000 debt principle! It is like paying interest only on a credit card bill. You will NEVER have a zero balance."

I agree that the dollar-for-dollar deal is good politics. If Obama refuses, he looks unreasonable. I don't agree that "only 10%" is nothing to be concerned about though I guess you didn't mean it that way: you meant that it could be paid indefinitely without real default.

But people need to be educated. Their dollars are worth less with every dollar printed. It is a hidden tax, this printing of money business. I agree that the debt ceiling should not be raised in any case for any reason. Since there is no real chance of default, today is the best day to prioritize the budget and simply begin the diet. Why? Because today we have more choices than we'll have tomorrow.

Everyone wants the budget balanced, just not on their dime. This has to change before anything can be done.

Get rid of ALL unconstitutional spending and we'd have a huge surplus the next day.

Long term problems require long term solutions. It took a long time to get to the sorry state we are in and to think there is one magic bullet solution is just plain silly. Dr. Krauthammer is absolutely correct to say ...it is of paramount importance to frame your demands in a way that the public sees as reasonable. The side that can command public opinion will prevail -- the other side will ultimately cave for fear of being blamed for whatever dislocation occurs." Conservatives and other Republicans must understand that they need a long term strategy but also to understand that perseverence is omnipotent.

Warning: I am NOT a conservative, and I am a tax and spend (on the poor and middle class) yet budget-cutting (of defense and close those darn military bases) pinko. Howdy!

I actually agree that the Republicans should get what they want -- so that when GDP is lopped off by 10% and millions are thrown out of work almost instantaneously and our credit-worthiness takes a hit (we can still borrow, but at massively inflated rates) and private borrowers see an increase in their interest rates... everyone will know who is responsible. Obama -- who I don't like, and I am sorry I voted for him -- will be faulted only on Fox News. The rest of the planet (including China) will know otherwise.

The reason I want this is because I am beginning to understand that Americans' lack of historical perspective has made them fail to understand the true suffering of genuine deprivation. We have no images of the poor except to blame them for "our troubles" and to offer only more prison time, closed schools, racism -- you know the drill.

Maybe it is about time that suburbanized America got a taste of what its earlier generations got in the early part of the twentieth century. I'd like to think that would wake us up to the need to orient goverment to taking care of its people FIRST, before tax cuts to the rich, before wars of choice, before privatization of essential services.

It is clear that conservatives have no understanding of fiscal reality (how many of YOU have credit cards and or mortgages or have kids in college paid for by loans?) As long as the weak and voiceless pay for decisions made by the powerful by continued privation, that is ok. Put your money (while you still have some) where your mouth is. Don't wanna raise the debt limit? Make my day!