"All but unnoticed last month, a bipartisan group of legislators introduced a resolution calling for Congress to keep budget deficits at no more than 3% of gross domestic product."
It went unnoticed for good reason. This Congress cannot bind a future Congress except through (a) rules, which the majority can change and (b) Constitutional amendments.
Second, voting for deficit-busting legislation every moment it comes up in one's politial career isn't undone by before go-nowhere messaging resolutions.
It's old, but I suspect we still have pretty widespread agreement among experts:
"If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85% [of economics agree])"[0]
A 3% rule doesn't strictly violate this, but it's obviously violating the basic principle: some years you should go higher, and some years you should go lower.
"All but unnoticed last month, a bipartisan group of legislators introduced a resolution calling for Congress to keep budget deficits at no more than 3% of gross domestic product."
It went unnoticed for good reason. This Congress cannot bind a future Congress except through (a) rules, which the majority can change and (b) Constitutional amendments.
Second, voting for deficit-busting legislation every moment it comes up in one's politial career isn't undone by before go-nowhere messaging resolutions.
It's old, but I suspect we still have pretty widespread agreement among experts:
"If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85% [of economics agree])"[0]
A 3% rule doesn't strictly violate this, but it's obviously violating the basic principle: some years you should go higher, and some years you should go lower.
[0] https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economist...