Surprise!! A balanced budget amendment does not mean reduced spending or a smaller government or less taxation.

Original Commentary by J Smithson

The House of Representatives needed 290 votes, a 2/3 majority, to approve a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution. Things looked hopeful to an uninformed observer with the announcement on Wednesday that a 25 member caucus of Democrat Blue Dog Democrats that they would support the amendment. In the end, about an hour ago, today, the House vote was 261, 29 votes short of getting this done.

Paul Ryan voted against the amendment. He did not believe the bill would deter spending because it did not cap tax increases. Want to spend more under a seemingly prohibitive balanced budget amendment? Simple. Raise the heck out of taxes and, wala, you have money to spend and balanced budget to brag about.

“Spending is the problem, yet this version of the [balanced-budget amendment] makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow, and economic freedom will be diminished.”

Makes sense to me. Let's file this under "smoke and mirrors," shall we?