Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password
Reason logo

Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.

Reason is supported by:
Brian McCahill

Donate

Policy

Balancing Act

Would a balanced budget requirement reduce the deficit?

Peter Suderman | From the April 2013 issue

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Would a balanced budget requirement actually reduce deficits? Perhaps not, argued Alan Reynolds in the June 1995 issue of reason. During the biggest budget battle of the Clinton era, Reynolds warned in "Unbalanced Amendment" that one proposal to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution could instead result in higher taxes—and continued deficits. 

The problem with the amendment, wrote Reynolds, was a "shortsighted focus on next year's estimated deficit." When big deficit estimates came in, Congress would raise tax rates on an emergency basis, confident that budget gaps could be filled with higher revenue. But as Reynolds noted, higher tax rates don't always mean higher revenues: In the early 1990s, several states tried to close projected budget deficits by raising taxes, only to see revenues drop. "Far from promoting smaller government," he wrote, "the amendment would be most useful to pols who hope to block constructive tax reforms, to play Robin Hood with the tax code, and to thwart any serious efforts to curb the growth of federal spending."

Ironically, interest in a balanced budget requirement peaked during the two presidential terms with the lowest federal deficits in recent history. Almost two decades later, Bill Clinton is long gone from office, and so are the low deficits that defined his presidency. 

But with deficits exceeding $1 trillion and federal debt at $16 trillion and rising, Washington's budget wars have once again intensified. Just a few months into President Barack Obama's second term, House Republicans and the White House already have engaged in heated showdowns over the fiscal cliff, the federal debt limit, and "sequestration," a package of spending cuts that emerged as a result of a 2011 debt limit faceoff. 

Both Republicans and Democrats say they want to cut deficits and debt, at least eventually, but so far there has been little progress, and recent proposals to balance the budget seem as flawed as ever. A Republican plan to cut federal spending and cap it as a percentage of the economy would exempt big entitlements like Medicare and Social Security as well as some military spending, putting the biggest long-term debt drivers off limits.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Farm Subsidies Must Die

Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason.

PolicyEconomicsGovernment SpendingBudget DeficitDeficits
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (7)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Alan Vanneman   13 years ago

    "Almost two decades later, Bill Clinton is long gone from office, and so are the low deficits that defined his presidency."

    I guess you meant "low deficits and unprecedented surpluses". Close enough for "Reason."

    1. Sevo   13 years ago

      Yep, real "surpluses" there! Why we could afford the minimum payment on the credit card balance!

  2. ChrisN   13 years ago

    I guess you mean low deficits reached by shamelessly triangulating and stealing the Republicans playbook for maximum political advantage.

    Go Slick Willie!

  3. PM   13 years ago

    The Clinton surpluses were unprecedented, inasmuch as they weren't real

  4. alaamiah   11 years ago

    amendment, wrote Reynolds, was a "shortsighted focus on next year's

  5. spraying   11 years ago

    revenues: In the early 1990s, several states tried to close

  6. mapsalaamiah   11 years ago

    trillion and federal debt at $16 trillion and rising, Washington

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Dec. 2 - Dec. 9, 2025 Thanks to 152 donors, we've reached $33,225 of our $400,000 goal!

Reason Webathon 2023

Donate Now! Donate Now

Latest

The Law of War Was Not Designed for Trump's Bogus 'Armed Conflict' With Drug Smugglers

Jacob Sullum | 12.2.2025 6:20 PM

In Connecticut, Zoning Reform Is Back From the Dead

Christian Britschgi | 12.2.2025 1:30 PM

College Football Teams Can't Keep Making the Lane Kiffin Mistake

Jason Russell | 12.2.2025 1:00 PM

The Poverty Line Isn't a Vibe

Eric Boehm | 12.2.2025 12:45 PM

The Trump Administration Says Nursing Isn't a Professional Degree. Here's Why That's a Good Thing.

Emma Camp | 12.2.2025 11:41 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

HELP EXPAND REASON’S JOURNALISM

Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.

Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREEDOM

Your donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks