Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/54318
Authors: 
Whalen, Charles J.
Year of Publication: 
1995
Series/Report no.: 
Public policy brief // Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College 20
Abstract: 
Charles J. Whalen evaluates the political and economic arguments in favor of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget and concludes that, although today's federal budget process needs reform, the balanced budget amendment is not a solution. In fact, such an amendment would divert attention from what is really needed, namely, establishing priorities and making difficult decisions concerning the deficit. It would be damaging to both the economic and the political systems of the United States. He recommends budget alternatives - a full-employment budget, an investment budget, a narrowly defined federal capital budget, a biennial budget - that would give the budgeting process more direction and encourage more restraint than the amendment would.
ISBN: 
0941276082
Document Type: 
Research Report

Files in This Item:
File
Size
7.41 MB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.