Blackadder Mk2
Well-known member
So one thing I found out about the balanced-budget campaigns of the 1990s in America was first that it was considered a big deal by the public (or enough of them) and that it was actually the closest of the failed amendments to succeeding via the Congressional method i.e. 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senates. It only failed by one vote in the Senate in 1995 after two Republicans joined Democrats in rejecting it. It came close again in June 1996 but lost by two votes this time.
The question is simple, let's say one of those Republican Senators sticks to the party line or fifteen instead of fourteen Democrats take the plunge and the balanced-budget amendment passes with a 2/3rds majority in both Congressional Houses. The US Constitution now has a balanced-budget amendment which, from what I can gather, requires a balanced budget unless 3/5ths of both Houses of Congress agreed to waive it. Whether it's in 1995 or 1996, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this would change a lot.
It's a big defeat for Clinton and a big win for Gingrich and Republicans. My knowledge of American politics is lacking, not least '90s, but I can see this being damaging in the general election and might give Dole a bigger edge, although maybe not enough to push him over the line. Presuming the absence of butterflies, the Bush years had to deal with economic troubles and the War on Terror, so I could see a bi-partisan deal to have a deficit to take out Bin Laden, but once the Democrats have their 2006 landslide and the 2008/9 economic crisis hits, that's not going to be fun.
As for outside of the US, I'd say this might make some Anglophone conservative movements begin a push for one of their own but not really amount to much. Britain wouldn't be that much different as Blair/Brown's promise to keep to Tory spending limits in 1997 isn't going away and it's not like there's a Constitution to amend. Maybe having a Balanced Budget Act becomes a thing to go with the OBR?
The question is simple, let's say one of those Republican Senators sticks to the party line or fifteen instead of fourteen Democrats take the plunge and the balanced-budget amendment passes with a 2/3rds majority in both Congressional Houses. The US Constitution now has a balanced-budget amendment which, from what I can gather, requires a balanced budget unless 3/5ths of both Houses of Congress agreed to waive it. Whether it's in 1995 or 1996, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this would change a lot.
It's a big defeat for Clinton and a big win for Gingrich and Republicans. My knowledge of American politics is lacking, not least '90s, but I can see this being damaging in the general election and might give Dole a bigger edge, although maybe not enough to push him over the line. Presuming the absence of butterflies, the Bush years had to deal with economic troubles and the War on Terror, so I could see a bi-partisan deal to have a deficit to take out Bin Laden, but once the Democrats have their 2006 landslide and the 2008/9 economic crisis hits, that's not going to be fun.
As for outside of the US, I'd say this might make some Anglophone conservative movements begin a push for one of their own but not really amount to much. Britain wouldn't be that much different as Blair/Brown's promise to keep to Tory spending limits in 1997 isn't going away and it's not like there's a Constitution to amend. Maybe having a Balanced Budget Act becomes a thing to go with the OBR?