Those of us on the peacemaking side of armaments debates have usually resisted calls that would require a balanced budget, usually because of our concerns about what would happen to the poor and oppressed during economic downturns. It’s not that we’re against a balanced budget, mind you – many of us would favor a budget surplus and reserves.
Curiously, however, those who have been most vocal in their demands for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget have also proclaimed strong support for large military outlays.
Here’s their unintentional bind: Some historians and economists have noted that without the ability to borrow money, America would never have been able to enter into armed conflict. Perhaps that’s universally true among nations, not just mine.
If that’s the case, perhaps we have our lines tangled. Would a balanced-budget requirement have prevented the U.S. buildup in Vietnam as well as both wars in Iraq?
Remember, too, we were on track to eliminate the federal deficit before 9/11 overturned everything.
The war costs were, in effect, put on a national credit card the hawks were never willing to pay off.
Is this a game we’re willing to play – a kind of chicken? (No pun intended.)
The concept certainly thickens the plot, even before we get to name-calling.
Jnana's Red Barn 