Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWhalen, Charles J.en_US
dc.description.abstractCharles 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.en_US
dc.publisher|aLevy Economics Institute of Bard College |cAnnandale-on-Hudson, NYen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries|aPublic policy brief // Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College |x20en_US
dc.titleAssessing the constitutional route to federal budget balance - The balanced budget amendment: Toxic, not tonicen_US
dc.typeResearch Reporten_US

Files in This Item:

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