Constitutional limits on spending?

[The One and Only...]

What do you think of the possibility? Exceptions would be put in for national emergencies, of course, but do you think it would be feasible?

It wouldn't be that hard to write up a measure. The simplest way would simply be stating a static cash value + population growth + inflation/deflation (a negative, so to say) rate. Granted, that would be a rediculously simple rule; better ones could be made defining a cap on the amount of GDP that the government could utilize, for example.

I already know that most of you would disagree with such a limit, but I ask you to consider the possibility outside of political bias. That said, remember that minimal spending levels could also be put into place.

[mew barios]

June 6, 1996. A mysterious explosion destroys the Chernolton research facility near Moscow. Lucifer Alpha, a powerful biological weapon under secret development there is released into the atmosphere, creating a deadly biohazard. Carried by the tradewinds, Lucifer Alpha spreads throughout Eastern Europe and Eurasia, destroying 80% of the populous. Half of the worlds people die. The greatest biohazard in history later simply becomes known as "The Catastrophe." But at this time who could have possibly imagined that the ultimate biohazared wouldn't occur for another half century. 50 years later man kind faces it's greatest crisis, the appearance of a mysterious android life form. It's purpose and origin are unknown. Is it a new kind of weapon? Or perhaps an invasion from some other world..! They appear during winter killing humans, and infiltraiting society by taking the place of their victims. Imploying an artificial skin, they can sweat and even bleed. Part organic, part machine, they're almost impossible to distinguish from those they kill. As they steal their victims bodies in order to take their place, these mysterious invaders become known as "Snatchers."

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Okay, I'll bite.

I don't know that I oppose it. I haven't read too many opinions either for or against it, although I have heard it mentioned before. The problem I see with a spending cap, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we'd never be able to pay down the existing deficit with a cap. Secondly, what would the cap be? I tend to cringe when I see policy wonks trying to solve public problems with mathematical equations. I'd imagine any such amendment would require a "formula" entailed with the amendment. So what spending gets justified and what becomes expendable? Any discretionary spending? Who defines a "national emergency"??? Will there be a set criteria for that...?

[The One and Only...]

"National emergency" would probably be somewhat defined, but still vague. If anything clearly was not listed as a national emergency, there would probably be a clause that allowed it to be considered one with a strong majority vote, like 3/4.

The deficit would be taken care of before the amendment was added, or it would simply not be considered spending for the purpose of the amendment. Of course, in order to prevent abuse, strong budget restrictions would need to be put in place as well...

Also, I errored when I said GDP. That would not be a very accurate method. So, a forumula might need to be added in, or perhaps restrictions on taxation levels.